Sikora v. Sofina Foods, 2012 HRTO 670

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Miroslaw Sikora

Applicant

-and-

Sofina Foods Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: March 30, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 670

Indexed as: Sikora v. Sofina Foods

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 6, 2012, alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences in employment.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether the Application should be dismissed at this preliminary stage because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”). The NOID is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

4On March 9, 2012, the Tribunal sent a NOID to the applicant which noted that the Application appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application does not appear to raise an issue that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to resolve. The NOID indicated that the applicant alleged discrimination on the ground of record of offences, but failed to describe how the respondent’s behaviour was related to “record of offences” based on the definition of that ground in the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the Application is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on or before April 8, 2012.

5On March 19, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal indicating that he made some mistakes in completing his Application and did not mean to check off the box next to the ground of record of offences. He essentially indicated that he meant to allege discrimination on the grounds of race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and age, and not record of offences.

6In his Application, the applicant alleges, among other things, that he felt he was subjected to discrimination because he did not speak Vietnamese, and that he was singled out and treated differently than other workers, not provided with equal opportunities, including being denied training opportunities, and his employment was terminated. The applicant alleges that, prior to the termination of his employment, he advised a supervisor that he was subjected to discrimination, following which the supervisor also subjected him to discrimination by not talking to him and ignoring him.

7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on a respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A decision to continue to deal with an Application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the Application: see Rule 13.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

8Based on the Application, and the applicant’s submissions in response to the NOID, it appears that the applicant incorrectly cited the ground of record of offences. The applicant has clarified that he is alleging differential treatment and/or harassment by the respondent on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin and age. While the applicant does not explain why he believes that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of age, it is not plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

9In accordance with Rule 13.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, a copy of the Application, the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant’s submissions dated March 19, 2012, and this Interim Decision will be sent to the respondent. The respondent is directed to file a full Response to the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.