Richard Gagnier v. Kellogg Canada Inc. and Al Todd, 2012 HRTO 52

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Gagnier

Applicant

-and-

Kellogg Canada Inc. and Al Todd

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: January 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 52

Indexed as: Gagnier v. Kellogg Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Richard Gagnier, Applicant ) Self-Represented

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences in employment and contracts.

2The Application contains a series of allegations related to general labour relations issues. While the applicant makes reference to experiencing negative comments from managers and coworkers as well as harassment and discrimination, there are no facts in the Application which describe how the applicant’s experiences are connected to a prohibited ground under the Code. One allegation, which relates to the applicant bidding on a job upon return from a shoulder injury, does not contain an allegation of a failure to accommodate.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) the Application on the following basis:

you allege discrimination based on the ground of “record of offences” but have failed to describe how the respondents’ behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (s. 10 (e)).

4The applicant filed the following submissions in response to the NOID:

Facts:

No criminal record

All information of violations forwarded

Discrimination in workplace continues

Situation detrimental to health

:will seek employment elsewhere

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

6The term “record of offences” is defined in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:

“record of offences” means a conviction for,

(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or

(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment; (“casier judiciaire”)

7It is apparent that the applicant has misinterpreted “record of offences” to include a record of disciplinary offences or a record of offensive workplace experiences. As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one’s Code rights.

8There are no facts contained in the Application or in the applicant’s response to the NOID that could support an allegation of discrimination under the Code. Accordingly, it is plain and obvious that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and the Application is dismissed.