Shamahamad v. Brookfield Condominium Services, 2016 HRTO 1271

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Nazreen Shamahamad Applicant

-and-

Brookfield Condominium Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: September 28, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1271 Indexed as: Shamahamad v. Brookfield Condominium Services

1This Application, filed on March 21, 2016 under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of colour and record of offences.

2On August 16, 2016, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) that advised her that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

• While the response to question #7 of the Application alleges that the last incident of discrimination she experienced occurred on February 29, 2016, a review of your Application indicates that it is either not clear what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on this date or how the incident described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code;
• The HRTO does not have the power to consider claims filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination or the last in a series of incidents of discrimination unless the delay in filing was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay [s.34(1)]. You do not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the HRTO’s case law;
• 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(s). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless the unfairness is connected, in whole or in part, to one of the grounds specifically set out in Part I of the Code.
• The applicant alleged discrimination based on the ground of “record of offences” but have 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for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (s. 10 (e)).

3The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions in response to the NOID by September 15, 2016.

4The NOID warned the applicant that if she did not file written submissions by the specified date, then the Tribunal would make its decision based only on the information in the Application or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss it for that reason. As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not filed any submissions in response to the NOID or the letter of September 15, 2016. In the circumstances it appears the applicant has abandoned the Application.

5The Application is dismissed as abandoned.