Ciccone v. Lais Hotel Properties Limited, 2016 HRTO 582

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kayla Ciccone

Applicant

-and-

Lais Hotel Properties Limited and April Brunet

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: May 3, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 582 Indexed as: Ciccone v. Lais Hotel Properties Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kayla Ciccone, Applicant Self-represented

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal.

2The Application alleges that the applicant was subjected to bullying conduct by her supervisor. She complained about this conduct to the Vice-President of Human Resources. Shortly after her complaint, she was called into the office of the Director of Human Resources, who suggested that her outfit did not meet the dress code for the company, an assertion the applicant disputes. Two weeks later, she was fired outside of her probationary period.

3On March 22, 2016, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on the basis that the allegations in the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide). The applicant was directed to file her submissions by April 21, 2016.

4On April 20, 2016, the applicant wrote an email to the Tribunal, saying that she had consulted with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre prior to filing her Application, and that she would be consulting with an employment lawyer. The Tribunal wrote back on April 21, 2016, asking her to advise whether she required further time to complete her submissions. The applicant did not respond to this inquiry. In the absence of a request for an extension, the applicant’s deadline for filing submissions has now passed.

5At no point in the Application or submissions does the applicant suggest that the bullying allegations were in any way linked to a ground listed under the Code. As indicated in the NOID, the Tribunal does not adjudicate general claims of unfairness. There must be a nexus between the allegation of unfairness and a ground under the Code.

6With respect to the allegation of reprisal, section 8 of the Code states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

7To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, the applicant must demonstrate that he experienced reprisal for:

• claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• refusing to infringe the right of another person.

8Given that the applicant has failed to establish that she was claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, she is unable to rely on the first prong of this test. There is nothing in the body of her Application or submissions to suggest that she had instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or was refusing to infringe the rights of another person.

9Given that the applicant has failed to establish that the alleged conduct at issue was related to a ground under the Code, or constitutes reprisal within the meaning of s.8, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.