Falconer v. Contours M.D., 2013 HRTO 1038

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cindy Falconer Applicant

-and-

Contours M.D. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: June 11, 2013 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1038 Indexed as: Falconer v. Contours M.D.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cindy Falconer, Applicant Self-represented

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 reprisal with respect to employment. No allegation with respect to discrimination because of a ground listed in s.5 of the Code was included.

2On May 3, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) this Application requesting the applicant to provide submissions with respect to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with the Application because the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged reprisal did not appear related to any specific acts of reprisal within the meaning of the Code: 1) claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; 2) instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or 3) refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code.

3In submissions received on May 31, 2013, the applicant clarified that the allegedly inappropriate behaviour by her manager described in the narrative of the Application was sexual harassment, and discrimination because of sex and family status. The applicant also described in her submissions incidents, which, if true, could constitute discrimination because of age. The applicant clarified that the termination of her employment after she repeatedly tried to complain to the respondent about this behaviour and these incidents was a reprisal for starting a complaint process about what the applicant alleges was discrimination and harassment.

4At this preliminary stage before the Application has been delivered to the respondent and a Response (Form 2) has been filed, the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application where it is plain and obvious that it is outside its jurisdiction. In light of the applicant’s submissions, I find that it is not plain and obvious that the Application is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as there appear to be allegations which if proven may establish a violation of the Code. I also find it appropriate at this stage, in light of the applicant’s submissions, to amend the Application to include the grounds of sex, family status, age and sexual harassment.

5This is not a final Decision on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with this case.

6The applicant must immediately file an amended Application, completing the questions related to sex, family status, age and sexual harassment. At the same time, she must deliver the amended Application to the respondent. The Tribunal will deliver the original Application, the NOID and the applicant’s submissions in response to the respondent with this Interim Decision who will be required to file a Response (Form 2) within 35 days of its receipt.

7I am not seized.