Fernandez v. Tomas, 2013 HRTO 1827

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jude Fernandez Applicant

-and-

Vito Tomas Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: October 30, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1827 Indexed as: Fernandez v. Tomas

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jude Fernandez, Applicant Self-represented

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 reprisal.

2The applicant is a bus driver. He alleges that following a customer complaint, the respondent (a manager or supervisor of drivers) reproached him for taking too many bathroom breaks on his route, thereby causing the bus to run late.

3Because the narrative in the Application does not disclose an incident of reprisal within the meaning of the Code, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. That letter explains that reprisal entails 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. The applicant was directed to explain how the events he describes amount to a reprisal.

4The applicant responded by again describing the incident. In his description he alleges that the respondent told him that "something is wrong" with him for taking so many breaks and that he should go see a doctor.

5The applicant has not explained how the respondent's actions or statements might constitute reprisal within the meaning of the Code. However, the description provided by the applicant might amount to an allegation of discrimination on the basis of disability or perceived disability.

6If that is what the applicant is alleging then he will be given the opportunity to amend his Application accordingly. The amended Application should explain whether he is alleging that he actually has a disability or whether he is alleging that he was perceived as having one. If he files an amended Application then the Tribunal will determine the next steps to be taken. If it is not filed in accordance with the timeline below then the Application will be dismissed as abandoned.

order

7The applicant is permitted to file an amended Application in accordance with this Interim Decision by November 8, 2013. If he fails to do so the Application will be dismissed as abandoned.