HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Virancis Rulona
Applicant
-and-
City Housing Hamilton / First Place, City of Hamilton, Ramana Ganersaratnam, Mario DeMedeiros and Al Morrison
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Rulona v. City Housing Hamilton
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Virancis Rulona, Applicant
Self-represented
1The applicant filed this Application on March 4, 2013, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal with respect to employment.
2The applicant alleges that he was hired as a superintendent but was assigned the duties of a cleaner. The applicant alleges that he was subjected to mistreatment and constructive dismissal because of this change in job duties. The applicant alleges that his employer did not properly address his concerns regarding workplace unfairness.
3On March 18, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application and narrative failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code and, in particular, failed to explain how the respondent’s alleged reprisal behaviour was related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code. The applicant was directed to file submissions with respect to these issues.
4The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on March 26, 2013 stating that he believed that the individual respondents abused their authority. The applicant noted that on March 20, 2013 his employment was terminated effective immediately and he and his family were required to vacate their residence by April 1, 2013. The applicant alleges that all of this constitutes reprisal.
DECISION
5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage before it is delivered to a respondent if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
6I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The applicant solely relies on reprisal as the basis for his claim and the Application forms expressly note that the protected Code grounds are “not applicable”.
7It appears that the applicant believes that he was treated unfairly with respect to employment because, although he was hired as a superintendent, he was assigned mostly cleaning duties. The applicant notes he raised concerns with management regarding the cleaning duties, but was advised that the current system of cleaning would not be changed. The applicant also alleges that, when he was informed that he did not qualify for a new position, he was told this news verbally instead of in writing. The applicant perceived this to be an irregular employment practice. The applicant asserts that, after he alerted management to his concerns of unfairness the assignment of cleaning duties, he was subjected to even more “unacceptable attitude”.
8I find that it is plain and obvious that the alleged acts do not come within the scope of the Code’s protections against discrimination and reprisal. Although the applicant contends that his concerns amount to ‘issues of violations of employment equity’, the applicant did not explain how any of the alleged incidents relate to any Code grounds or reprisal allegedly committed by the respondents in relation to having claimed or sought to enforce any Code-protected rights.
9The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment, services, contracts, etc.) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender, sexual orientation and age, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code.
10Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals as follows:
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.
11In order to come within the section 8 of the Code and its protection against reprisal, the applicant must demonstrate that his concerns relate to:
- Claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
- Instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
- Refusing to infringe the Code-related right of another person.
12The applicant clearly feels that he was constructively dismissed when he was assigned primarily cleaning duties; however, he does not allege or explain how these concerns occurred in relation to a Code ground, or because of an attempt on his part to claim and enforce his Code rights, or his refusal to infringe the Code-related rights of others.
13As noted above, the Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate employment disputes, but addresses only those claims that allege contraventions in relation to Code grounds and protections. While the applicant appears to allege unfairness with respect to being assigned cleaning duties, the applicant’s narrative did not specify any link between the impugned treatment and any Code ground or any attempt to enforce a Code claim. The current Application does not allege that the respondents discriminated or harassed the applicant because of his race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, marital status, family status, etc. The Application simply alleges that the respondents’ actions constituted reprisal because the applicant raised concerns of unfairness in being assigned cleaning duties as a superintendent.
14Based on the Application and the applicant’s materials, I am satisfied that the applicant’s allegations with respect to his employment duties do not relate to Code-protected grounds and, further, do not raise matters with respect to reprisal. The applicant did not identify any Code ground of discrimination or any basis upon which he alleges that he raised Code–related concerns with the respondents leading to retaliation. While the applicant clearly feels that the respondents treated him unfairly with respect to the scope of his job duties, he did not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to a Code-protected grounds or because of an attempt on his part to claim or enforce his Code-rights.
15In conclusion, it appears that the events described in the Application are not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the alleged incidents do not raise discrimination connected to the Code or reprisal within the meaning of the Code.
16Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of April, 2013.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair