HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kathleen Sky
Applicant
-and-
PARO Centre for Women’s Enterprise
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky
Indexed as: Sky v. PARO Centre for Women’s Enterprise
APPEARANCES
Kathleen Sky, Applicant
Self-represented
PARO Centre for Women’s Enterprise, Respondent
Derek Zulianello, Counsel
Introduction
1By Application filed on July 11, 2016, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated and reprised against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”).
2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of her gender identity. In response to a request for further information from the Tribunal, the applicant added the grounds of race, colour, ethnic origin and ancestry.
3In essence, the applicant alleged that the respondent’s Financial Manager harassed her by not treating her with respect and shouting at her. She also alleged that the respondent did not remove her name from their website and impeded her ability to receive Employment Insurance benefits. Finally, she alleged that the respondent conducted an inadequate investigation of a complaint she filed because it did not properly explain the outcome of the investigation to her.
4In her Application, the applicant listed the date of the last incident of alleged discrimination to be June 26, 2015.
5On June 2, 2017, the respondent requested a summary hearing in this case. Having reviewed the materials filed by the parties, the Tribunal decided to schedule a summary hearing to hear submissions from the parties on whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application for one or more of the following reasons: (1) on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success under the Code and/or (2) on the basis that it is untimely.
6Regarding the first reason for scheduling a summary hearing, the Tribunal indicated that it was “not clear that there [was] any evidence available to the applicant to establish a connection between the respondent’s alleged actions and any of the grounds of discrimination listed in her Application.”
7The summary hearing took place on November 29, 2017.
Analysis and Decision
No Reasonable Prospect of Success
8The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with or remedy general allegations of unfairness that are unconnected to a ground protected under the Code. Significantly, the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of harassment, unprofessional or inappropriate behaviour, or reprisal that are unconnected to a ground listed under the Code. The Tribunal only has the power to deal with discrimination and reprisal that is prohibited by the Code.
9The Code’s reprisal protections are very specific. Section 8 of the Code only precludes actions of a respondent that are intended as a reprisal for any of the following: (1) claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; (2) instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, (3) refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. See for example Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878 at para. 31. To proceed with the Application, there must be a reasonable basis to believe that the applicant could establish the respondent reprised against her for one of these three things.
10In her Application, the applicant made general allegations of mistreatment on the part of her employer and claimed that this was because she was an aboriginal woman.
11At the summary hearing, the applicant simply stated that she experienced “stress” and “pain” at her workplace and that this “should have been recognized” by the respondent.
12The applicant did not provide, or point to, any evidence on which it might be established that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of gender identity, race, colour, ethnic origin or ancestry.
13The applicant also did not identify any evidence on which it might be established that the respondent acted with the intention of reprising against her within the meaning of the Code.
14Therefore, even assuming that the alleged mistreatment occurred, I find that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.
15Given this finding, it is unnecessary to address the issue of delay.
order
16The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of December, 2017.
“Signed by”
Eban Bayefsky
Vice-chair