Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
William Leentjies
Applicant
-and-
The London Transit Commission, Tyson Cragg, Joanne Galloway, Julie Hall, John Gillet, John Ford, Craig Morneau, Ilir Qamili, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Amalgamated Transit Union and Brian Tansy
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Yasmeena Mohamed
Indexed as: Leentjies v. The London Transit Commission
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
William Leentjies, Applicant
Mihad Fahmy, Counsel
1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondents failed to investigate his claims of harassment and failed to appropriately accommodate his disability in the workplace.
2On June 26, 2017, the Tribunal sent to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Against Certain Respondents (the “Notice”). The Notice advised the applicant that the Application against the respondents, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”), Amalgamated Transit Union (“ATU”) and Brian Tansy (“BT”) may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by WSIB, ATU and BT. By email dated July 26, 2017, the applicant notified the Tribunal that no submissions will be filed in response to the Notice.
Analysis and Decision
3An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
4The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. To fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, an application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s conduct to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination.
5With respect to WSIB, the applicant alleges in the Application that WSIB asked him to commit a fraud and that they continue to accept information from his employer, despite their rejections of his WSIB claim. The narrative provided by the applicant fails to point to any connection between WSIB’s alleged actions and any ground in the Code.
6In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application in relation to WSIB is not conduct prohibited under the Code. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear allegations against WSIB and dismisses the Application in relation to WSIB.
7With respect to BT, the applicant alleges in the Application, that BT failed to investigate and take his harassment and accommodation grievance to step three of the arbitration process. BT’s conduct was therefore discriminatory. The applicant named BT in his capacity as a representative of the applicant’s bargaining agent, ATU, and not as a representative of the applicant’s employer. In this case, the applicant alleges essentially that his bargaining agent representative, BT failed pursuance of his grievance to arbitration. The applicant does not make any allegations of differential treatment in this regard. In Traversy v. Mississauga Firefighters’ Association, [2009 HRTO 996](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2009/200