Tatsuya Ota v. Zebra Pen Inc. Canada, 2012 HRTO 968

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tatsuya Ota

Applicant

-and-

Zebra Pen Inc. Canada

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Decision Date: May 14, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 968

Indexed as: Ota v. Zebra Pen Inc. Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tatsuya Ota, Applicant

Brian G. Bell, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin as well as reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. Rule 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 of the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) the application.

3The Tribunal sent the applicant a NOID on March 21, 2012. The NOID indicates that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the events described in the Application fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

4The applicant filed written submissions on April 7, 2012.

5The Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code. The Code is not designed to remedy all instances of differential treatment, poor management, bullying or interference in one’s public affairs. In order for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction the alleged misconduct or mistreatment has to be linked in a substantive way to a Code ground.

6The applicant provides an extensive narrative of events in his Application, in which he makes a number of allegations concerning what he believes is improper conduct and unfair treatment on the part of the president of the respondent. In essence the applicant alleges that the president unfairly accused him of intimidating and threatening one of his colleagues and wrongfully suspended him from work for four days. However, the link between the allegations of improper conduct and unfair treatment and the applicant’s ethnic origin, or any other Code protected ground, is not plain and obvious. While the applicant is of Japanese origin, his narrative does not tie that fact to the alleged mistreatment that he experienced at the hands of the respondent.

7In his submissions, the applicant makes a number of further allegations and observations that again do not link the alleged misconduct and mistreatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

8With respect to the allegation of reprisal or threat of reprisal, section 8 of the Code reads:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

Even if the respondent treated the applicant in a wrongful manner, the applicant has not alleged any actual or threatened retaliatory act on the part of the respondent linked to his complaint under the Code. I find, therefore, that the applicant has not made out an allegation of reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.

9An application will 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. In that the there is no obvious link between the alleged misconduct of the respondent and a ground under the Code and in that the applicant has not made out an allegation of reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code 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

10The Application is dismissed.