Connor v. Investment Industry Regulatory Organization, 2016 HRTO 1579

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Connor

Applicant

-and-

Investment Industry Regulatory Organization

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1579

Indexed as: Connor v. Investment Industry Regulatory Organization

1This is an Application filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of record of offences.

2In his Application, the applicant alleges that he has been denied employment on a number of occasions because of a record of complaints about his conduct made to the respondent. The applicant asserts that when prospective employers learn of this record of complaints they decline to employ him. The applicant also alleges that the record of complaints is inaccurate and the respondent, despite being aware of these inaccuracies, continues to release his information when requested to do so.

3On November 3, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

4The NOID noted that from a review of the Application it appeared that the respondent may be a federally-regulated service provider. The NOID also noted that the applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of “record of offences.” The NOID went on to explain that Application failed to show 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for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment (s. 10 (e) of the Code). The NOID pointed the applicant to two Decisions of the Tribunal Gravino v. P.R. Maintenance, 2009 HRTO 516, and de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172.

5The applicant responded to the NOID.

6The Application is dismissed because it is plain and obvious that it is outside ot the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide.

7Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an Application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, and Belcastro v. Metrolinx Go Transit, 2012 HRTO 2121.

8Record of offences is defined in section 10 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;

9The applicant argues that although he has never been convicted of any offence, the respondent’s actions have had the effect of turning a record of complaints about his conduct in the past into what amounts to a record of offences. The central plank of the applicant’s arguments in response to the NOID are set out here:

The issue surrounding [the respondent] discriminating against me and essentially making it impossible to gain employment is the fact that they have stretched what the definition of an offence relates to. In my case by forwarding my complaint settlement report to prospective employers it deters my ability to gain employment. [The respondent] is inferring to prospective employers that any complaint against me is actually factually correct, and that I have violated rules even though I may not have been prosecuted with respect to the complaint. The sole intention is prevent me from gaining employment or to make it as difficult as possible.

Essentially [the respondent] is saying that the complaints are in fact a record of offence. There is no logic or reason to forward a ComSet report that is neither confirmation of an offence or that the complaint was addressed through process and is actually factual. By forwarding the document [the respondent] discriminates on the grounds that I have actually committed the allegations associated with the complaint.

10As sympathetic as the applicant’s claim might be, the Tribunal has no authority to deal with allegations of unfairness. Instead its authority is confined to resolving allegations of substantive discrimination as defined in the Code.

11The applicant does not claim to be a person with a record of offence as defined in the Code. Indeed his claim is that he is being unfairly reported to prospective employers as a person who has not been convicted of anything but against whom complaints have been made. Assuming that the assertions of the applicant are accurate, these are not issues that are addressed by the Code.

12The applicant is therefore not a person with a record of offences as defined in the Code. He claims no other ground of discrimination. Accordingly it is plain and obvious that this Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide.

13For all of these reasons I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide and accordingly it is dismissed.