Artz v. Marel Contractors, 2016 HRTO 1424

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ronnie Artz

Applicant

-and-

Marel Contractors

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: November 2, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1424

Indexed as: Artz v. Marel Contractors

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ronnie Artz, Applicant

No one appearing

1This Application, filed on January 15, 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 record of offences.

2On June 1, 2016, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) that advised him that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

• 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for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (s. 10 (e)).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 July 4, 2016.

4The NOID warned the applicant that if he 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. In the circumstances it appears the applicant has abandoned the Application.

5The Application is dismissed as abandoned.