Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Andrey Wolkowski Applicant
-and-
Liquor Control Board of Ontario Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: August 23, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1117 Indexed as: Wolkowski v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Andrey Wolkowski, Applicant Self-represented
1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect employment because of record of offences. The applicant states that the respondent withdrew a job offer after a criminal records check revealed that he has a criminal record.
2By letter dated March 14, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) to the applicant, advising him that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the applicant alleges discrimination based on the ground of “record of offences” but failed to describe how the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada), R.S.C. 1985, c. C-47, and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (s. 10(1)). The Tribunal directed the applicant to make submissions on the issue of jurisdiction no later than August 25, 2016.
3The applicant filed written submissions on August 5, 2016. The applicant conceded that he has a federal criminal record and has not received a pardon. Nonetheless, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal should not dismiss his Application because the respondent’s actions are inconsistent with its own “Equal Employment Policy”, which does not state that individuals with criminal records are ineligible for employment. The applicant submitted that the respondent’s actions are inconsistent because it twice hired him for similar contract positions, but did not conduct a criminal records check. The applicant submitted that the respondent should consider the nature of a candidate’s offence and determine whether it would have any effect on his ability to perform the work in question. The applicant also submitted that he served the sentence imposed upon him and met his debt to society. The applicant noted that he must wait for ten years before he can apply for a pardon, which makes it difficult for him to re-enter society as a contributing member.
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 definition of “record of offences” is set out in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:
“record of offences” means a conviction for,
(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or
(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment;
6The applicant’s submission is essentially that the “record of offences” is defined too narrowly in the Code, which is understandable in the circumstances. However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is set by the Code and it must operate within the limits placed on its jurisdiction by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In this case, the applicant acknowledges that he was convicted for an offence under federal criminal enactments and has not been granted a pardon for it. As a result, I find that it is plain and obvious that the ground of “record of offences” does not apply and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application.
7The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of August, 2016.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Douglas Sanderson Vice-chair