Hans Felix v. Microsoft Canada Company, 2014 HRTO 1049

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hans Felix

Applicant

-and-

Microsoft Canada Company

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: July 17, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1049

Indexed as: Felix v. Microsoft Canada Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hans Felix, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On February 18, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) and directed the applicant to respond to the issues identified by no later than March 20, 2014.

3The NOID states that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

4In the Application and subsequent submissions filed on March 14, 2014, the applicant set out allegations that the respondent discriminated against him because a person with whom he spoke regarding a job opening would not continue the interview when the applicant advised he could not work from Friday evening to Sunday evening due to his religious beliefs.

5The applicant attached e-mails between him and a recruitment associate from an agency that is not named as a respondent, dated March 13, 2013. The e-mail from the applicant to the recruitment associate refers to the applicant’s allegation that an employee of the respondent refused to give him an interview for the reason detailed, above, and that he hopes matters can be worked out with the respondent’s employee to give him the same opportunity as others.

6The applicant also attached a June 11, 2013 email from a different individual from a different company apparently also bringing a job opening with the respondent to the attention of the applicant. It is not clear to the Tribunal if it is related to the applicant’s allegations.

analysis and decision

7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is delivered to the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

8Having considered the applicant’s Application and his subsequent filing, I find that it is not plain and obvious that this matter falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, given the applicant’s allegation that an employee of the respondent failed to interview him in March, 2013 after he indicated that he could not work from Friday to Saturday evenings due to his religious beliefs.

order

9The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The Tribunal will deliver the Application and a Notice of Application on the respondent.

b. The respondent is directed to file a Response to the Application with the Tribunal in accordance with the Rules within 35 days of the date of its receipt of the Notice of Application.

c. The applicant may file a Reply to the respondent’s Response in accordance with the Rules.