HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Steven Howell
Applicant
-and-
Sun Life Financial
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Howell v. Sun Life Financial
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Steven Howell, 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 a record of offences. The applicant maintains that the respondent refused to hire him after a criminal records check revealed that he has a criminal record. In his Application, the applicant confirms that his record of offences is under federal law, and that he has not received a pardon.
2On September 24, 2016, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a letter from the respondent that states:
My manager and I have had the opportunity to review Steven Howell’s file. Based on the information provided in the report and our suitability guidelines, we cannot proceed with this candidate at this time. Our decision was influenced based on the offences on record that have not been pardoned.
3On October 11, 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 he failed to describe how the respondent’s behaviour was related to 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respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada), R.S.C. 1985, c. C-47, and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (s. 10(1)).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 November 10, 2016.
4The applicant filed written submissions on October 31, 2016 maintaining that he believes he was discriminated against based on his 2010 conviction. He submits that the respondent’s letter filed with the Tribunal on September 24, 2016 confirms this.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
5An 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.
6The 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(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or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.
7The applicant acknowledges that he was convicted for an offence under a federal criminal enactment 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.
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16^th^ day of November, 2016.
“Signed By”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair