Giannias v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 HRTO 1754

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nick Giannias Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 5, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1754 Indexed as: Giannias v. Toronto District School Board

1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 12, 2013.

2In his Application, the applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of record of offences and reprisal.

3On November 21, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The NOID noted that the Application alleged discrimination on the basis of record of offences but that it failed to describe how the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon had been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and had not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (s. 10 (e)). See for example Gravino v. P.R. Maintenance, 2009 HRTO 516; de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172.

4The NOID also noted that the applicant had alleged reprisal but had failed to describe how any of the respondent’s actions were said to be related to any claim he had made under the Code.

5The applicant responded to the NOID. In his submissions the applicant re-affirmed what he alleges in the Application – that he was “discriminated based on the fact that I was a whistleblower back in 2010 regarding a colleague who got my student teacher drunk”.

6Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an Application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Belcastro v. Metrolinx Go Transit, 2012 HRTO 2121.

7In my view it is plain and obvious that this Application must be dismissed as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it.

8The foundation of the Application is the formal claim that the applicant has been discriminated because of a record of offences which is defined in the Code as set out above. The applicant has provided no submissions to support the conclusion that he is such a person. On the contrary the applicant appears to confirm that he is not such a person but that he believes he has been targeted by a number of individuals because he reported an alleged incident of inappropriate behaviour by a colleague. I also note that despite claiming to be singled out the applicant also asserts that the school administrators treat everyone in the school badly. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with general claims of unfairness. In light of the applicant’s submissions it is plain and obvious that he is not a person with a record of offences.

9It follows from this conclusion that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider a claim of reprisal related to the applicant’s claim of differential treatment on the basis of record of offences. Reprisals are prohibited by the Code:

8. 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.

10I have reviewed the Application and the applicant’s submissions in response to the NOID. There is no indication that the applicant ever made a Code claim for which a reprisal might have been imposed on him. I note again that the applicant has no claim to record of offences discrimination. There are no other allegations which might engage the Code. There being no, even theoretical, Code claim or issues arising out of the Application, there can not have been a reprisal by the respondent in respect of such a claim or issue.

11For these reasons I find that it is plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised by the applicant.

12The Application is dismissed.