Karen Wilson v. Canada Loyal Insurance Agency Limited, 2015 HRTO 1309

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Wilson

Applicant

-and-

Canada Loyal Insurance Agency Limited and Lawrence Fuller

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: October 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1309

Indexed as: Wilson v. Canada Loyal Insurance Agency Limited

APPEARANCES

Karen Wilson, Applicant

Self-represented

Canada Loyal Insurance Agency Limited and Lawrence Fuller, Respondents

Dana Fuller, Counsel

introduction

1The applicant alleges that the respondent reprised against her in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). By Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 784, the Tribunal directed that the matter be scheduled for a summary hearing by teleconference.

2The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure as well as the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests. The purpose of a summary hearing is to consider, early in the proceeding, whether an application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, because there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

3For the reasons set out below, I find that this Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, therefore, that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

Decision and analysis

4The applicant worked as a medical underwriter with the organizational respondent, a small family-run insurance agency. The Application largely concerns an interaction she had with Lawrence Fuller, the personal respondent and owner of the respondent agency, on June 13, 2014.

5Briefly, the applicant alleges she discovered on that day that her pay cheque, which she should have received that day, was going to be delayed. The applicant states that this is not the first time this had happened and she was very upset because she relies on being paid on time. She spoke with her immediate supervisor, the personal respondent’s daughter, about her concerns who in turn advised the applicant to speak to her father. The applicant sent an email to him explaining her anger about the delay.

6At the summary hearing, the applicant explained that that day, the personal respondent came to see her in her office and shut the door. He said something, accompanied by hand movements, that suggested to her that she had put her job in jeopardy by making the complaint. She states that this greatly upset her and she was close to tears at the end of the meeting.

7After this heated exchange, and in what the applicant believes was an effort to diffuse the anger, the personal respondent came over to her, gave her a hug and said to her “Do you still love me?” She states she stood there stiffly while this was happening. She alleges he then said to her “Maybe you never did” and left her office.

8The applicant continued to work for the respondent after this, but left when she found other work in February 2015. She said that receiving late pay cheques was a recurring problem.

9Although the respondent has a somewhat different view of the facts, I am relying on the applicant’s version of events to determine whether these allegation fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

10The Tribunal has held on many occasions that it does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness unrelated to the Code. See, for example, Arias v. Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, 2009 HRTO 1025 at para. 27 and Pellerin v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, 2011 HRTO 1777 at para. 10. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to claims of discrimination and reprisal under the Code.

11With respect to the applicant’s claim of reprisal, section 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.

12To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, the applicant must demonstrate that he 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.

13It was clear from her submissions that the applicant believed that being paid on time was a right protected under the Code and that she was, therefore, being reprised against for asserting this right. However, there is no suggestion that the failure to pay the applicant on time is an act of discrimination, or based on a Code ground. As pointed out by counsel for the respondents, part of the relief sought by the applicant in her Application is enforcement of the Employment Standards Act. The Tribunal does not, however, enforce rights under other statutes. That is, its jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code.

14Although she did not claim sexual solicitation, harassment or reprisal in her Application, at the summary hearing I did question the applicant about her allegation relating to the hug and the comments about whether she loved the personal respondent. The applicant stated that she did not interpret this as sexual behaviour, but merely as a misguided attempt to, in her words, “quell the waters” after the previous, more angry exchange between them.

15It was clear from her oral submissions that her real concern was the unreliability of the pay cheques and the threat of job loss.

16For the reasons set out above, the allegations do not constitute either discrimination or reprisal under the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.

order

17The Application is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.