Davlut v. Diana Carbone Financial Solutions Inc., 2015 HRTO 373

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julia Davlut

Applicant

-and-

Diana Carbone Financial Solutions Inc. and Diana Carbone

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: March 24, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 373

Indexed as: Davlut v. Diana Carbone Financial Solutions Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Julia Davlut, 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 contracts. In the Application, the boxes "record of offences” and “association with a person identified by a ground listed above” were checked by the applicant. However, in the narrative of the Application, the applicant alleges that she experienced discrimination when the personal respondent terminated her after their discussion about how the applicant believed the respondent had treated her unfairly and unprofessionally.

2On February 13, 2015, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The NOID advised the applicant that the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. Specifically, the NOID advised the applicant that the ground of record of offences was alleged in the Application, but the applicant had failed to to describe how the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of this ground.

3The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on March 5, 2015. The submissions indicate that the applicant is alleging discrimination on the additional ground of reprisal or threat of resprisal. The submissions add details in support of her allegations that she was treated unfairly and unprofessionally by the respondents. The submissions do not address the apparent absence of a link between the termination of the applicant’s contract of administrative services with the respondents and a Code ground or explain how the respondents’ behaviour was an act of reprisal resulting from the applicant’s assertion of her human rights.

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, etc.) on the basis of specific protected grounds such as age, race, marital status, and 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 in terminating the applicant’s contract for services to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in section 3 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 for so doing.

7In the Application and submissions, the applicant has not alleged any facts that make a link between her claims and a Code ground. The applicant has made no allegation or provided any facts to support a claim that the alleged unfairness she experienced when the respondents terminated her contract of services is grounded in the Code or that it amounts to reprisal.

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.

ORDER

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