Athanasios Giannos v. Alexandra Wilcox, 2015 HRTO 1687

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Athanasios Giannos

Applicant

-and-

Alexandra Wilcox

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: December 15, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1687

Indexed as: Giannos v. Alexandra Wilcox

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Athanasios Giannos, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on October 21, 2015 under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ethnic origin, creed, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, age and reprisal or threat of reprisal. The Application alleges that when the applicant complained to the respondent about mistreatment in the workplace he was fired from his job.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the application to a respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application (“NOID”) to the applicant.

3The Tribunal sent a NOID dated November 13, 2015 to the applicant. The NOID states that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

4The applicant was directed to provide written submissions in response to the issues raised in the NOID. The applicant filed his submissions on December 4, 2015. However, he did not identify any acts of discrimination relating to any grounds protected under the Code.

analysis and decision

5Section 8 of the Code sets out what constitutes reprisal under the Code:

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 for so doing.

6In Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 the Tribunal stated that “Reprisal under s. 8 of Code must be a reprisal for the assertion of human rights and there must be an intention to reprise for that reason”.

7It is clear that the Application identifies a number of the respondent’s actions which were, in the applicant’s opinion, unwarranted or unfair. The Application also appears to suggest that his termination of employment was in retaliation for his complaints towards the respondent regarding his mistreatment. However, the Application does not allege that any of the respondent’s actions were related to a Code ground or were in reprisal for the applicant asserting that his human rights had been violated. While the applicant clearly alleges that he was mistreated, the Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code.

8At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s claim is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as the Application does not identify any acts of alleged discrimination based on any ground protected under the Code.

order

9For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.