HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Suzanne Lilliman
Applicant
-and-
Hudson’s Bay Company and Rana Rakesh
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Lilliman v. Hudson’s Bay Company
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Suzanne Lilliman, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of the ground of record of offences contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In the Application, the applicant claimed that the respondents violated the Code when she was bullied in the workplace.
3On March 12, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application (“NOID”) because it appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the NOID indicated that the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The NOID also indicated that the applicant failed to describe how the respondents’ behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of “record of offenses” as that term is defined in the Code.
4In the NOID, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding these jurisdictional issues. The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal. However, she did not identify any acts of alleged discrimination relating to the ground of record of offences or any other ground protected under the Code.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
5At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s claim is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as the Application does not identify any acts of alleged discrimination based on any ground protected under the Code.
6The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over cases of general unfairness or bullying that is unconnected to a ground protected under the Code. The ground of “record of offences” has a very specific meaning under the Code. It is defined to mean a conviction for,
(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or
(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment.
7When asked in her Application whether she believed she was discriminated against because of a record of offences committed under federal or provincial law, the applicant replied “No”. In her response to the NOID, she identified no acts that would constitute discrimination on the basis of record of offences, as that term is defined in the Code. She also did not identify any acts of alleged discrimination that were based on any other ground protected under the Code.
Order
8For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of April, 2014.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair