Greg Halliday v. Kinark – Child and Family Services SYL Apps Youth Centre, 2013 HRTO 1522

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Greg Halliday Applicant

-and-

Kinark – Child and Family Services SYL Apps Youth Centre Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: September 12, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1522 Indexed as: Halliday v. Kinark – Child & Family Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Greg Halliday, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the applicant experienced reprisal or the threat of reprisal in the area of employment.

2In a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID), dated May 15, 2013, and a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), dated June 11, 2013, he was directed to identify how the actions of the respondents were related to any of the following: 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 under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32; Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273.

3Having reviewed the Application documents and the applicant’s submissions, the Application is dismissed for the following reasons.

4In his Application document, the applicant indicates that he was disciplined by his employer because he attempted to apologize to a co-worker for what he refers to as “a previous incident” when he “made her uncomfortable”.

5In submissions filed in response to the NOID and CAD, the applicant has provided further details of the discipline meted out to him, the subsequent grievance process, its outcome and his dissatisfaction with his supervisor. However, there is nothing in the submissions that establishes a connection between the allegations he has made and reprisal or a threat of reprisal under the Code.

6Specifically, there is no indication that the discipline was connected or related to him claiming or enforcing his rights under the Code, instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code or refusing to infringe the rights of another person under the Code.

7Instead, it appears that he has concerns that, following the investigation into a “previous incident” during which he made one of his co-worker “uncomfortable”, his employer failed to take appropriate to repair relations between the applicant and his peers. He also takes issue with possible disclosure of information relating to the incident and the ensuing discipline in the workplace at large.

8The Tribunal does not have a general power to decide whether the respondent treated the applicant fairly or appropriately. The Tribunal’s powers relate only to alleged discrimination and violations of the Code. In other words, while the applicant has clearly stated that he feels let down and mistreated by the respondent, to fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, he must also explain how this alleged mistreatment relates to a ground and social area under the Code.

9Based on the materials filed by the applicant, I cannot conclude that there is a relationship between the Code and the allegations contained in the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.