Morris v. Peterson, 2013 HRTO 1115

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kelly Morris

Applicant

-and-

Michael Peterson

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: June 25, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1115

Indexed as: Morris v. Peterson

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

2On May 9, 2013 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application as it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

3The NOID directed the applicant to provide submissions as to whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider her Application, which she failed to do.

4I have reviewed the applicant’s Application, and she alleges that she was terminated by the respondent after reporting allegedly improper OHIP billing practices by the respondent. The applicant also stated that there had been sexual solicitation or advances made by the respondent, but she also stated that because this allegedly had happened more than a year prior to her commencing this Application, it was not the basis of this Application.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

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.

5Having considered the applicant’s Application, I find that the applicant has failed to identify any act of discrimination that is related to the Code.

6The Application is based entirely on the applicant’s allegations that the respondent terminated her employment after she had inquired about the respondent’s billing OHIP for services she performed.

7This is in the nature of a workplace disagreement unrelated to any ground under the Code. The Tribunal has no power to address allegations of discrimination except on the grounds set out in the Code.

8With respect to the allegation of reprisal, section 8 of the Code states:

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.

9To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, the applicant must demonstrate that she experienced reprisal for:

• claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;

• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code:, or

• refusing to infringe the right of another person.

10Given that the applicant has not asserted that her termination was related to a ground under the Code, her attempts to remedy this conduct cannot be said to be either “claiming” or “enforcing” a right under the Code. She also did not allege that she experienced reprisal as a result of instituting or participating in Code proceedings or refusing to infringe the Code rights of another person.

11It is plain and obvious that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application.