Shir Gal v. Jaytex Group of Canada Ltd., 2013 HRTO 867

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shir Gal Applicant

-and-

Jaytex Group of Canada Ltd. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: May 21, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 867 Indexed as: Gal v. Jaytex Group of Canada Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shir Gal, Applicant Self-represented

background

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 age. The applicant used to work for the respondent as a swimwear sales representative until she left her job because, she alleges, she could no longer tolerate the discriminatory treatment she had endured.

2The narrative portion of the Application (Question 8 of Tribunal Form 1) consists of a series of allegations of harsh or unfair treatment of the applicant by her then supervisor. A plain reading of the narrative discloses that none of the alleged incidents or practices identified by the applicant draws a link between what the supervisor is alleged to have done and the applicant’s age.

3Because it appeared that the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and asked the applicant to provide submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

4The applicant provided submissions but did so by filing a Response (Form 2), although this form is meant to be completed by respondents, not applicants. The submissions ask the Tribunal not to dismiss her Application and repeat the narrative that she had already supplied in Question 8, Form 1.

analysis

5A closer reading of the Application shows that the applicant had in fact provided a sufficient link between the alleged incidents and the prohibited ground of age discrimination. This may have been overlooked when the Tribunal sent out the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

6In completing Form 1-A, Question A34 in support of her Application, the applicant makes specific allegations that her young age was a factor in how she claims to have been treated by the respondent. She alleges that her supervisor took advantage of her youth and inexperience to treat her in a demeaning way, and that this treatment was different from the treatment of other employees of the respondent. When Form 1-A is read in conjunction with the narrative in Form 1, a link is established between the alleged incidents and the Code ground identified by the applicant.

7For these reasons the Application will not be dismissed at this stage. I should make clear that this does not mean that the Tribunal has made any decision that the allegations made by the applicant are well-founded. It simply means that the applicant has made allegations that appear to have a link to a Code ground.

order

8The Application may proceed.

9The Registrar is requested to notify the respondent of this Application so that it may file a Response, and to provide a copy of this Interim Decision to the respondent. In filing its Response, the respondent is requested to indicate whether it is willing to attempt to resolve this Application through the Tribunal’s mediation process.