Grant v. Bombardier Inc. Bombardier Commercial Aircraft, 2015 HRTO 495

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Malcolm Grant

Applicant

-and-

Bombardier Inc. Bombardier Commercial Aircraft

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: April 20, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 495 Indexed as: Grant v. Bombardier Inc. Bombardier Commercial Aircraft

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Malcolm Andrew Grant, Applicant Self-represented

Bombardier Inc. Bombardier Commercial Aircraft, Respondent Carolyn Picard, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against him because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Among other things, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him when it did not interview or offer him the position of Senior Tool Designer. He also alleged that the respondent breached the Code by failing to conduct an investigation of a compliant he filed with the respondent’s Board of Directors.

Applicant’s Request for order during proceedings

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During proceedings (“RFOP”) in which he requested a ruling or hearing into the issue of his employment status with the respondent without the need to address or decide the merits of his Application at this stage. The applicant makes several claims relating to a severance agreement he signed in or around 2004. He also cites arbitral case law and decisions from the Ontario Labour Relations Board in support of his claim that he is still an employee of the respondent.

4The respondent submitted that the applicant’s RFOP is premature and should be dealt with as part of the hearing of the overall Application.

5The applicant sought to file a reply to the respondent’s response despite the fact that the Tribunal’s Rules do not provide a right of reply to RFOP Responses. Among other things, in the reply, he sought to amend the Application to add allegations from several years ago. I will treat his reply as a request to amend the Application.

Findings re. RFOP

6The applicant’s request for a ruling or hearing on his employment status is denied. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to interpreting and applying the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general jurisdiction over labour relations issues such as the one raised by the applicant. The Tribunal also does not have jurisdiction over allegations of fraud or wilful blindness such as those raised by the applicant. If the applicant believed that the severance agreement he signed in 2004 was illegal, he had the right to challenge it at that time. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the legality of contracts such as the one signed by the applicant.

7I note that the applicant appears to take issue to my reference to him as a “former employee” in Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 253. My reference to the applicant as a “former employee” comes from the applicant’s own characterization of his status on his filings with the Tribunal. In answer to Question A1 of the Application, the applicant indicated that the respondent was his “former employer”. As well, in his Request for an Interim Remedy, the applicant indicated that he was “previously employed with the respondent”.

8In any event, I do not agree that the question of the applicant’s employment status is an issue that must be addressed as a preliminary issue. The issue in this case is whether the respondent breached the Code when it failed to grant him an interview, failed to hire him and failed to conduct an investigation into his complaint to the respondent’s Board of Directors. The applicant’s employment status does not have to be addressed as a preliminary matter before the Tribunal addresses the main issue in the case.

ORDER

9For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request for a ruling on his employment status is denied.

10Having reviewed the materials filed in this case, I find it appropriate for the Tribunal to hold a summary hearing in this matter. The applicant’s request to amend the Application will be addressed as part of the summary hearing. A separate Case Assessment Direction will be issued providing directions for the summary hearing.