Hamid Muhammad Azim v. Dollarama, 2014 HRTO 458

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hamid Muhammad Azim

Applicant

-and-

Dollarama

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: April 9, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 458

Indexed as: Azim v. Dollarama

Introduction

1This Application alleges reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) in employment.

2The purpose of this Decision is to determine whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3On March 5, 2014, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) to the applicant, advising the applicant that the Application was incomplete and provided a form identifying which information was missing from the Application. The information identified as missing related to what remedy the applicant was seeking and an indication of whether or not the applicant was agreeable to mediation. It provided the applicant with the opportunity to complete the Application by providing the missing information on an attached form by March 25, 2014, and advised that if the information was not provided, the Application would be closed and the incomplete Application would be returned to the applicant.

4Additionally the NOID advised that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent, and it failed to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code or instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code or refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. The NOID provided a March 25, 2014 deadline for the applicant to make submissions regarding the question of whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction (power) to resolve. It advised the applicant that if the missing information referenced above was provided, but there were no submissions, the Tribunal would make its decision based only on the information in the Application or may consider the failure to respond as abandonment of the Application and dismiss it for that reason.

5The applicant has returned the form to the Tribunal with the required information.

6On that same form, the applicant has provided an explanation of why he feels the respondent has reprised against him.

BACKGROUND

7In his Application, the applicant states that he was employed in one of the respondent’s stores. He alleges that on February 4, 2014, his manager humiliated a co-worker in front of other co-workers and store customers, and that later the manager and the co-worker went into a back room. He alleges that a few minutes later, he heard the co-worker call his name for help, and that when he responded, she told him that the manager had tried to assault her. He alleges that he tried to diffuse the situation, but that the argument continued. He alleges that he was then instructed to provide a written statement about the incident and that the next morning, his employment was terminated. He alleges that he subsequently received a letter from the respondent, stating that he was “fired without cause”.

8In his submissions, he states that he believes he has been reprised against because he was called into the backroom where a co-worker and the manager were in an argument. He alleges that the manager was “extremely hostile and aggressive toward the employee, and she was behaving extremely unprofessional and I found this to be completely inappropriate”. He states “I did not support the manager in this argument, as I didn’t feel it was right”. He submits that when his employment was terminated, he was told that it was because he “should have supported the manager whether she was right or not”.

DECISION

9Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an Application that is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Rule 13.2 further states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application. The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires him or her to file written submissions. Under 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: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 58 and Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63.

10In my view, it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons.

11The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over every dispute between an employee and an employer; it only has jurisdiction when the Application alleges that there were violations of the Code.

12In his Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent reprised against him contrary to the Code.

13Section 8 of the Code states:

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.

14While he has alleged that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal, the applicant has not explained what link there is between the respondent’s actions and reprisal or threat of reprisal for having claimed and enforced his rights under the Code, for having instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or for refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. It is clear that the applicant considers the respondent’s actions in terminating his employment to have been unfair, but in the absence of a link between the allegations made and an explanation for how the respondent’s alleged actions were related to a reprisal under the Code, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to resolve this Application.

15I find that the Application does not make any allegations that relate to the grounds of discrimination under the Code, or allege that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code. Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to resolve this Application and it is therefore dismissed.