Carrie Loyer v. SSQ Financial, 2016 HRTO 658

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carrie Loyer

Applicant

-and-

SSQ Financial

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: May 16, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 658

Indexed as: Loyer v. SSQ Financial

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Carrie Loyer, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment because of her disability and association with a person identified by a Code ground.

2On March 29, 2016 the Tribunal’s Registrar issued to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Against Certain Respondents (“NOID”). The NOID informed the applicant that the Application as against the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“union”) appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by the union.

3The NOID directed the applicant to provide written submissions within 30 days explaining how the union is alleged to have breached the Code.

4As of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s NOID and the time for doing so has elapsed.

Analysis and Decision

5The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an application to continue in the Tribunal’s process there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17.

6In her Application, the applicant alleged that she has had no advice or direction from her union and that the union failed to properly communicate with her.

7In my view, based on the facts as alleged by the applicant, she has no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the actions of the Union respondents were a breach of her Code rights. She has provided no facts that could demonstrate that the Union respondent refused to assist her because of her disability or that they treated her differently as a result of her disability. There must be facts presented that could demonstrate the link between the union’s actions and her disability or another Code protected ground. The Tribunal has consistently held that a union or an employee association’s refusal or failure to act on behalf of a member cannot be discriminatory unless it is linked to a Code ground. See for example, Traversy v. Mississauga Professional Firefighters’ Association, 2009 HRTO 996 at para. 33.

8Accordingly, the Application against Ontario Public Service Employees Union is dismissed.

Order

9The Application against Ontario Public Service Employees Union is dismissed.

10The Registrar will deliver a copy of the Application and this Interim Decision to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the respondent SSQ Financial.