Christopher Arsenault v. Royal Ottawa Mental Health Care Facility, 2013 HRTO 1386

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Arsenault

Applicant

-and-

Royal Ottawa Mental Health Care Facility

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: August 13, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1386

Indexed as: Arsenault v. Royal Ottawa Mental Health Care Facility

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christopher Arsenault, Applicant

Self-represented

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 record of offences.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application on July 22, 2013, on the following basis:

you allege discrimination based on the ground of “record of offences” but have failed to describe how the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment […]

3The applicant filed submissions in which he advised that he had been “charged” with drinking under age and in public, which are provincial offences, attract only a ticket or fine, and do not require a pardon, and that it was these charges in relation to which he was advised he would not be hired. In addition to being “charged,” it appears that the applicant also was found guilty and paid a fine.

4An 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.

5The term “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(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or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;

6It is not “plain and obvious” that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this case, given that it appears that the applicant had been convicted of an offence in respect of a provincial enactment, as defined by subsection 10(1)(b) of the Code, by virtue of having been issued a ticket for drinking in public and having paid the associated fine, and that this was the alleged reason he was not given employment.

7This Application is not dismissed and shall be served on the respondent.