Gibeault v. Walmart Canada, 2014 HRTO 961

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Gibeault

Applicant

-and-

Walmart Canada, Stephen Elgin, Tony Anastaiopalas, Scott McLean and Stephen Merils

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: July 2, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 961

Indexed as: Gibeault v. Walmart Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jennifer Gibeault, 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 record of offences, association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and reprisal.

2On May 27, 2014, the Tribunal Registrar sent a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Applicant to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code that were allegedly committed by the respondent. The Tribunal also advised the applicant that she failed to describe how the respondents’ behaviour engaged the grounds of “record of offences” or how their behaviour amounted to a reprisal under section 8 of the Code and directed the applicant to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence dealing with these issues. The Tribunal required the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by no later than June 26, 2014.

3The applicant filed submissions to her Application on June 18, 2014. In her cover letter, the applicant indicated that she had made “adjustments” to the Application. The applicant’s submissions essentially consist of her Application that has been amended to provide greater detail regarding incidents she experienced toward the end of her employment as a loss preventions officer with the organizational respondent. The applicant describes several incidents in which she believed the respondents treated her unfairly, including the termination of her employment. She did not present any facts or provide or any explanation regarding how the respondents’ actions amount to discriminatory acts under the Code grounds she cited.

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. Despite being directed to do so, the applicant has not explained how the incidents described in the Application amount to discrimination under the Code. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

5The Application is dismissed.