Hunt v. Ottawa (City), 2014 HRTO 596

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Hunt

Applicant

-and-

City of Ottawa and Roger Chapman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: May 1, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 596

Indexed as: Hunt v. Ottawa (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

James Hunt, Applicant

Self-represented

City of Ottawa and Roger Chapman, Respondents

David Patacairk, Counsel

1This Application, filed on February 25, 2014, alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2In the narrative of the Application, the applicant alleges that since 2008/ 2009 he has been subject to greater scrutiny by the personal respondent than his colleagues. The applicant refers to being off work for medical reasons in the spring of 2012 and returning to work in September 2012. The applicant alleges that in April 2013 he was given a letter about his time off during the previous year and was told it was “disgusting and disgraceful that an employee would miss this much time off work”. He alleges that he was told he needed to become a better employee. In the Application, the applicant does not rely on any prohibited ground of discrimination.

3On March 28, 2014, the respondents filed their Response to the Application. They assert the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Application because: (a) the applicant has not alleged the reprisal was the result of previously seeking to enforce his human rights; (b) the applicant is alleging personal harassment not harassment based on a prohibited ground of discrimination; and (c) any allegation relating to a medical condition is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety Insurance Board because it results from a workplace injury.

4The respondents also filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) seeking a dismissal of the Application on the basis that it is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the Response. With respect to the applicant’s allegation of reprisal, the respondents state the applicant has adduced no evidence that they intended to retaliate against the applicant.

5The applicant filed a Response to the Request. He states his Application should have included the ground of disability. He states further that his Application outlines how the personal respondent felt about his previous time off and his actions reflect this even though he was aware of the applicant’s condition.

6The applicant also filed a Reply where he states his condition arose in 2008 following several personal events that necessitated treatment for his disability, including counselling and medication, which he still prescribed today. The applicant states his diagnosis predates the events set out in the Application. He disputes his condition was the result of a workplace injury.

7Rule 13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures permits the Tribunal to dismiss an application at a preliminary stage if it is plain and obvious that the application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

8In reviewing the materials files by the parties, I cannot conclude that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In the Application, the applicant complains about excessive monitoring by the personal respondent, including relating to his sick leave. These events appear to have taken place in 2012 and April 2013. The applicant asserts that the excessive monitoring by the personal respondent is related to, in part, his sick leave. He alleges the excessive monitoring is a form of reprisal and relies on the ground of disability in the Reply. Because it is not plain and obvious that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Request is dismissed. The Application will continue to be processed by the Tribunal.