HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gregory Colley

Applicant

-and-

Red Car Service Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: April 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 703

Indexed as: Colley v. Red Car Service Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gregory Colley, Applicant ) Self-represented

Red Car Service Inc., Respondent ) Carol VandenHoek, Counsel

BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 2, 2011, alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences in employment. On October 13, 2011, the respondents filed a Response to the Application and a Request for a Summary Hearing. On November 2, 2011, the applicant filed a Reply.

2The Tribunal noted that while the applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of record of offences, he responded “No” to the questions in the Application as to whether he believed he was discriminated against because of having been convicted of an offence.

3On February 9, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to the applicant. The CAD explained that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas, including accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment. With respect to employment, the Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of the following grounds listed in s. 5(1) of the Code: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status, and disability. In particular, “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(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or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;

4The CAD invited the applicant to provide written submissions to identify the specific acts of discrimination, and an explanation why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The CAD noted that the application would be dismissed if it was found to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

5The applicant filed submissions in response to the CAD on March 13, 2012, essentially reasserting the allegations contained in the Application. The applicant states in his submissions:

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal provides protection to the individual against discrimination based on race, creed, physical attributes, record of offences as well as other situations…

Canada represents a society that is based on fairness and provides opportunities to those persons who seek protection from abuse and harm. There appears to be no protection for those individuals who do not fall into any specific category. Who looks after these persons? It is my belief that this is the role of the HRT….

ANALYSIS

6Contrary to the applicant’s belief, the Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390, Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2009 HRTO 1769, and Grant v. Tierney, 2011 HRTO 1207. The Code is not designed to remedy all instances of differential treatment, bullying, or interference in one’s public affairs. For the Tribunal to have jurisdiction (the power to hear and decide a matter) the alleged treatment has to be linked in a substantive way to a Code ground. See Kostiuk v. Ottawa (City), 2011 HRTO 16, Villella v. Brampton (City), 2011 HRTO 1085, and Johnston v. Kearney (Town), 2012 HRTO 537.

7I find that the applicant has failed to allege discrimination within the meaning of the Code, and therefore the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. As noted above, the applicant claims discrimination because of record of offences but admits that the termination of his employment was unrelated to him having a conviction for an offence under either a federal law (for example under the Criminal Code or Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) for which a pardon has been granted or under provincial law (such as the Highway Traffic Act). Moreover, the applicant admits that the allegations contained in the Application do not constitute discrimination based on any of the other Code grounds identified in section 5.(1).

8An Application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application and any other submissions that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, and Lérus v. Community Recreation Toronto, 2010 HRTO 2490.

9Pursuant to Code section 43(2), an application may be disposed of without affording the parities an opportunity to make oral submissions if the application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

10Based on the Application and applicant’s submissions, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.

ORDER

11The Application is dismissed.