Rots v. Assessment and Referral Centre, 2014 HRTO 698

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maria Rots

Applicant

-and-

Assessment and Referral Centre

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: May 20, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 698

Indexed as: Rots v. Assessment and Referral Centre

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 16, 2013.

2On February 27, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than March 31, 2014. The NOID advised the applicant that failure to respond to the NOID may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.

3The NOID also stated:

a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent [and] you allege discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal” but have failed to explain how the respondent ‘s behaviour was related to any of the following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32; Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273.

4The applicant wrote to the Tribunal after the NOID was delivered to her and provided some further information including a bald assertion that Larry Meawasige, who had not been named in the Application, was reprising against her for trying to file a restraining order against him and also alleging that he did not want her to have a cell phone or see her son.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is delivered to the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

5Having considered the applicant’s Application and her subsequent filing, I find that the applicant has failed to make any allegations of Code-related discrimination.

6Section 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.

To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, the applicant must demonstrate that she experienced reprisal for:

• claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• refusing to infringe the right of another person.

10The applicant has not asserted that any acts of the respondent were related to a ground under the Code, and her attempts to remedy this conduct cannot be said to be either “claiming” or “enforcing” a right under the Code. The applicant did not disclose in her Application any threat made by her to institute or participate in a proceeding under the Code for which the apparent reprisal was made. The applicant also did not assert that her job was terminated because she had refused to infringe the Code rights of another person.

11The applicant also has not alleged any facts that make any link between her claims and a Code ground.

11Based on the information before me I find it plain and obvious that the allegations of discrimination, which are not linked to a Code ground, and of reprisal or threat of reprisal do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

12This Application is dismissed.