Eva Alfoldi v. Le Chateau Inc., 2013 HRTO 1927

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eva Alfoldi Applicant

-and-

Le Chateau Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: November 20, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1927 Indexed as: Alfoldi v. Le Chateau Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Eva Alfoldi, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on October 28, 2013 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination based on the ground “record of offences”.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether the Application should be dismissed at this preliminary stage because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”). The NOID is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

4On October 28, 2013, the Tribunal Registrar sent a NOID to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent including any allegation of discrimination based on “record of offences”. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions responding to the issue identified within 30 days of the date of the NOID.

5The applicant filed submissions on November 9, 2013, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her age and for having complained to the respondent’s human resources department about treatment she was receiving from her supervisor.

6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Based on the applicant’s submissions, it is not plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

7In her submissions the applicant submits that she was subject to discrimination based on her age (and there is a brief reference to her age in the Application). This is sufficient for the Application to proceed. It appears the applicant also alleges she was subject to reprisal although it is not immediately evident that this is an allegation of reprisal under the Code which 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 for so doing

8A copy of the Application, the NOID and the submissions filed by the applicant in response to the NOID, and this Interim Decision will be sent to the respondent. The respondent is directed to file a Response to the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

9I am not seized.