DeSousa v. CUPE Local 416, 2016 HRTO 1264

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ben DeSousa Applicant

-and-

CUPE Local 416 and Jerry Dobson Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: September 28, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1264 Indexed as: DeSousa v. CUPE Local 416

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ben DeSousa, 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 to employment because of record of offences. The applicant states that his criminal record was used against him in elections for positions in the respondent trade union.

2By letter dated August 16, 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 respondents’ 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respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada), R.S.C. 1985, c. C-47, and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (s. 10(e) of the Code). The Tribunal directed the applicant to make submissions on the issue of jurisdiction no later than September 15, 2016, failing which the Tribunal would decide the issue based on the information in the Application or deem the applicant to have abandoned the Application.

3The applicant filed information to complete his Application on September 13, 2016, but did not make submissions regarding how the respondents’ behaviour comes within the definition of “record of offences” under the Code. Accordingly, the applicant does not appear to have abandoned the Application.

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(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or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;

6In the Application, the applicant acknowledged that he had been convicted of an offence under the Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, but does not state that he received a pardon for offence. 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.