Heap v. CUPE Local 1000 Power Workers Union, 2016 HRTO 313

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Heap

Applicant

-and-

CUPE Local 1000 Power Workers Union

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: March 9, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 313

Indexed as: Heap v. CUPE Local 1000 Power Workers Union

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Heap, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges unfair treatment by the respondent due to his creed.

2The Application contains very little narrative. In the narrative that is provided, the applicant alleges that he was subjected to discrimination because he was hired to build and dismantle scaffold safety but was assigned to materials handling. He asserts that he was subjected to an arbitrary test for building in contrast to members of the respondent. With respect to the Code ground of “creed”, he alleges that he was told by “supervision” to simply make money in contrast to his creed which is to protect the skilled labour of Canada from “…being reduced to beggary and to sustain the standard of Canadian workmanship and skill”.

3The Application has not been sent to the respondent for Response.

4The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) to the applicant on February 5, 2016. The NOID stated that the Application may be beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The Tribunal stated that it does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness and directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the issues identified in the NOID.

5The applicant sent to the Tribunal a letter in response to the NOID. He also filed over 100 emails from September 2012 to June 2015 that appear to be sent from a female’s email address to someone at a carpenters union, as well as to others. It does not appear that they were emailed to the respondent.

6The applicant submits that he is a member of Carpenter’s Local 27 and under this membership he abides by their stated code. He claims unfair treatment due to his creed, suggests that the Tribunal follow Huang v. Ottawa Chinese Senior Association, and writes, “I feel that because I am a member of the Carpenter’s Local 27 and adhere to their tenents [sic] that OPG Appendix A is discriminating against me and denying me employment”. He submits that as a member of the Carpenter’s Local 27, and abiding by their code, he falls within the protection of “creed”. Creed may include, he submits “other belief systems that, like religion, substantially influenced a person’s identity, world view and way of life”.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

7At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In reviewing the materials that the applicant filed, I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s claims against the respondent are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

8In Huang v. 1233065 Ontario, 2011 HRTO 825, (the respondent was the Ontario Senior Chinese Cultural Association) the Tribunal found, after a hearing in which expert evidence was tendered, that Falun Gong fell within the meaning of “creed” under the Code. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court of Canada decisions and recognized that the courts and human rights tribunals have not been quick to judge the validity of sincerely-held religious believes. See Huang, above, at para. 33.

9The Tribunal has also held that what identifies as creed is a set of sincerely held religious beliefs and practices. The Tribunal has adopted the Supreme Court of Canada’s test in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, finding that religious beliefs are those that have “a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith”. These beliefs and practices need not be based on the edicts of an established church of particular denomination. See, for example, Ataellahi v. Lambton County (EMS), 2011 HRTO 1758 at para. 6. This can also include atheism. See R.C. v. District School Board of Niagara, 2013 HRTO 13.

10Apart from what is quoted above, there is little narrative in the Application setting out allegations of anything against the respondent. The applicant alleges that he was subject to an arbitrary test for building in contrast to members of the respondent. The applicant does not identify what test or its date, does not explain how that relates to the respondent as an employer, and does not explain how that connects with the Code ground of “creed”.

11The applicant also alleges that “supervision” told him, on some unidentified date, to make money which, he asserts, is in contrast to his creed which is to protect the skilled labour of Canada from being reduced to beggary and to sustain the standard of Canadian workmanship and skill. Apart from this assertion, he has not explained how being a member of the Carpenter’s Local 27 would meet the definition of “creed” under the Code, nor how being told to make money is inconsistent with this “creed” if it in fact it has the protection of the Code.

12The emails that the applicant filed with the Tribunal are not responsive to the issues raised in the NOID. The emails are from a female, whom the Tribunal will refer to by her initials, E.R., from an email address different from the one the applicant provided in his Application. It is unclear whether the emails from this email account are in fact from the applicant.

13Even if the emails are from the applicant, they appear to be sent to an individual at a carpenters union and, sometimes, to others. It is unclear whether or not they were sent to someone at the union with which the applicant is a member. The emails do not appear to be sent to anyone with the respondent and they do not appear to relate to any issues pertaining to the respondent. They appear to be about work the applicant was doing somewhere, perhaps OPG since there are some references to OPG. They are essentially in bullet form, with meaning that is not readily apparent to someone who is not involved with the applicant. For example, there are references to “E1 317 unit 8, el 294 unit 7”, humidex numbers, “skidbitch” and various materials. Most importantly, the emails do not mention anything to do with the respondent and/or the Code ground of creed. The Tribunal’s role is not to try to interpret the meaning of supporting documentation when the applicant has been pointedly asked to provide submissions explaining how his Application falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant has provided no explanation about these emails.

14Accordingly, I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s allegations do not fall under the Code and his Application is dismissed.