Gord Podolski v. Jack May Chev Olds, 2015 HRTO 370

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gord Podolski Applicant

-and-

Jack May Chev Olds Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: March 24, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 370 Indexed as: Podolski v. Jack May Chev Olds

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gord Podolski, 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 reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The applicant alleges that he was subjected to harassment by a co-worker in the form of allegations of stealing customers and money and being undermined in his work. The applicant complains of a lack of management leadership and support for employee issues and concerns.

3On February 17, 2015, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) that advised him that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because 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. The Tribunal also advised the applicant the facts set out in the Application do not appear to support his allegation that he was subject to a reprisal within the meaning of the section 8 of the Code and the case law interpreting it. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions in response to the NOID by March 19, 2015.

4The applicant responded to the NOID on March 5, 2015, by e-mail. The applicant appeared to raise issues related to the prohibited ground of disability; therefore, in a letter dated March 12, 2015, the Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm whether he intends to rely on any additional prohibited grounds, such as disability, since he only selected reprisal in the Application. The applicant provided additional submissions by e-mail on March 12, 2015.

Analysis and Decision

5An 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. The applicant submitted that the respondent failed to address harassment by his co-worker, which in one case was severe enough that he left work. The applicant did not, however, give any indication that the harassment was related to a prohibited ground of discrimination, such as disability. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness, unless the unfairness is connected, at least in part, to a prohibited ground of discrimination. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389. To prove a reprisal under section 8 of the Code, an applicant must show that the respondent retaliated or threatened to retaliate against the applicant because he attempted to claim his human rights. The applicant stated that he complained about this harassment to management, but in the absence of an allegation that the harassment was based on a prohibited ground of discrimination, such a complaint does not amount to an attempt to enforce his human rights. The applicant also did not identify any act of retaliation or threat of retaliation the respondent made against the applicant for asserting his rights under the Code. In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application does not raise issues within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

Order

6The Application is dismissed.