Mohammad Shabbeer v. Aaroport Limousine Services, 2016 HRTO 992

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohammad Shabbeer

Applicant

-and-

Aaroport Limousine Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 27, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 992

Indexed as: Shabbeer v. Aaroport Limousine Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mohammad Shabbeer, 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 unfair treatment by the respondent and a violation of the duty of fair representation by his union (which is not named as a party). He further alleges that when he attempted to advocate on behalf of the members of his union, he was reprised against by the respondent. In a subsequent request to amend his Application, he advises that he was fired by the respondent.

3On March 23, 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 filed his submissions, as directed on April 22, 2016.

4At no point in the Application does the applicant suggest that the bullying allegations were in any way linked to a ground listed in s. 5(1) of the Code. In fact, the applicant specifically wrote in “NA” with respect to each of the questions concerning the grounds in his Form 1A. Although in his submissions to the NOID, the applicant raises the ground of “place of origin” (a ground which he previously said was not applicable), he does not specify what this place of origin is or why it was a factor in the treatment.

5As 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.

8The applicant alleges that the treatment he received was, at least in part, because of his union activity. He suggests that this is a violation of the Code. However, the applicant appears to be confusing the protections found in the Labour Relations Act with those found in the Code. There is nothing in the body of his Application or submissions to suggest that he had instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or was refusing to infringe the rights of another person under the Code. In the absence of an allegation that he was claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, the applicant is unable to rely on the protections against reprisal found in s. 8 of the Code.

9The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application, given 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. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.