Vanessa Cummings v. Olly Frescos, 2014 HRTO 1780

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vanessa Cummings

Applicant

-and-

Olly Frescos

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: December 11, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1780

Indexed as: Cummings v. Olly Frescos

APPEARANCES

Vanessa Cummings, Applicant

Self-represented

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 race.

2By letter dated November 3, 2014, the Tribunal notified the applicant that the Application may 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 with the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. Rather, the narrative to the Application described a series of alleged incidents of unfair treatment the applicant experienced while employed by the respondent. On the face of the narrative, there was no connection between these incidents and the applicant’s race. The Tribunal directed the applicant to make submissions on the issue of jurisdiction on or before December 3, 2014.

Applicant’s Submissions

3The applicant, who identifies herself as a black African Canadian woman, submitted that she was paid less to the same job as another woman who was hired after the applicant. The applicant also submitted that she and other black employees were treated differently than Asian and Caucasian employees. As an example, the applicant submitted that an employee hired after the applicant was given a uniform t-shirt, but the applicant was not. The applicant also submitted that the respondent showed no concern when the applicant hurt herself at work, but was very concerned and generous towards a white patron who slipped and fell in the respondent’s premises.

Analysis and Decision

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. In the circumstances of this case, I find that it is not plain and obvious that the subject matter of this Application falls outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal shall continue to deal with the Application.

5A decision to continue to deal with an application in these circumstances is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect to the Application (Rule 13.5).

Order

6The Tribunal shall proceed with the processing of the Application. Pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Application, a copy of this Interim Decision, the applicant’s submissions on the jurisdiction issue, and all correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicant on the jurisdiction issue, together with a Notice of Application, will be provided to the respondent.

7I am not seized of this matter.