Franssen v. Ontario Power Generation, 2015 HRTO 1227

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Robert Franssen Applicant

-and-

Ontario Power Generation Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: September 16, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1227 Indexed as: Franssen v. Ontario Power Generation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Franssen, 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 on the basis of reprisal. Specifically, the applicant alleges he experienced discrimination when he was disciplined at work following an alleged health and safety breach while other employees involved in a similar incident at another location were not disciplined.

2On July 21, 2015, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The NOID advised the applicant that 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; fails to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was reprisal within the meaning of the Code; and that the alleged incidents of discrimination appear to have occurred more than one year before the filing of the Application.

3The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on August 28, 2015. The submissions add details in support of his claim but they fail to establish any link between the the unfair treatment he alleges in being disciplined and a Code ground or explain how the respondent’s behaviour was reprisal under the Code.

Analysis and Decision

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. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment, services, contracts) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code such as age, race, marital status or disability. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code. Therefore, to be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction an application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s behaviour to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in section 1 of the Code or demonstrate how the respondent’s behaviour amounts to a reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

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.

7In the Application and submissions, the applicant has not alleged facts that make any link between the unfair treatment he alleges he experienced when he was disciplined while others were not and his right to claim or enforce his Code rights. In addition, the applicant has provided no facts that could demonstrate that he was disciplined because he was enforcing his rights under the Code.

8Based on the information before me, I find it plain and obvious that the allegations of discrimination, which are not linked to a Code ground, do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

9Having made this finding, I have determined that there is no need to consider the issue of delay in filing the Application.

ORDER

10For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.