There are times that my brain needs verification and validation after being Abused by Adult Bullies and this post is one of them. In the beginning, I would look every day at this site and all the released decisions, but I have gotten better with it over time.
I am getting there, slowly, and one day I won’t even need to do any of this!!
Narcissistic abuse is such a terrible experience and you end up with a lot of issues because of it, one is the need for validation, even self-validation!
Once in a while I still get into Canlii.org and look at the list of cases there, looking for similarities to the one I was involved in, looking for verification and validation, to be honest with you.
For me at the time, it was terrible that the applications against me got dismissed as abandoned, as there was no closure. It all just stopped after 19 months and it took time to process that I wouldn’t get my win there! I knew once I started getting Form 10s from the Tenants that they would lose, and they knew it.
As I got no closure from that process, I read released decisions and they help me find the closure I need at times. Below is one such case that was recently decided on in Ontario with similar allegations.
It isn’t the individuals that I want you to see, but the decision made.
Seeing these words so often on their released decisions on canlii.org does make me feel more comfortable and verifies what I have said since the beginning, they needed to provide a factual basis beyond their assertion that I was acting in a racist and discriminatory way toward them because they were an interracial couple/tenants.
The Toxic Tenants and I had a disagreement over Entry to the apartment for the first couple of months after I started working there, and they received a Form N5 for it that they didn’t like getting. They proceeded to write a 7-page letter voicing their displeasure over getting this Form N5, also filled with vague allegations against me for asking “inappropriate questions” and claiming that they had a “feeling” I had a problem with them for some reason. I was pressured to ignore them, even against my own judgment.
After more issues with entry, I just gave up on it as it was too frustrating. I tried to get their repairs done, but of course, the process wasn’t good enough for them. They were then ignored for a whole year!
They issue a Maintenance Request for just one of the repair issues they refused entry to contractors to fix before, and when I gave them more notice than required for entry, I was still denied as I didn’t have someone with me to do the work right then and there. They denied entry as they didn’t agree with the process I was using once again.
Then they have the nerve to complain that they were discriminated against and faced reprisal because they spoke out about my behaviour from the year before at this fictitious prior meeting they claimed we had. Yes, it is mindboggling!!
Note the word “maybe” as what follows is pure speculation, not facts they could prove. It is just like their “it appears” and “it seems” as they provide no factual proof that anything they wrote, was even true!
When you have been gaslighted on such a nasty level over every aspect, it becomes mandatory to verify and validate your own personal beliefs that you know to be true, for your own clarity and peace of mind.
I accept this is a side effect of the abuse I endured and have no problem taking all the time I need to get that peace of mind. I will do what I need to do for myself to feel better!!
Making sense of it all is all I am after these days…
To fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, an applicant must provide some factual basis beyond a bald assertion which links their ground(s) to the respondent’s actions and explains why they think that these actions are discriminatory in nature.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
 To proceed in the Tribunal’s process, an application must fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. An adjudicative body either has jurisdiction or it does not. See G.-L. v. OHIP (General Manager), 2014 ONSC 5392.
 The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. The Code only prohibits actions that discriminate against people based on their enumerated ground(s) in a protected social area. This means that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code. See Hay v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2014 ONSC 2858) (“Hay”) and Bello v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 ONSC 5535, Groblicki v. Watts Water, 2021 HRTO 461 (“Groblicki”) and Mehedi v. Mondalez Bakery, 2023 ONSC 1737 (“Mehedi”).
 By virtue of their humanity, everyone will identify with at least one Code-enumerated ground and, over the course of their lifetime, most people will suffer some form of adverse treatment which may or may not be connected to the Code. Because of this, the Code does not assume that all adverse treatment is discriminatory.
 To fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, an applicant must provide some factual basis beyond a bald assertion which links their ground(s) to the respondent’s actions and explains why they think that these actions are discriminatory in nature. See Hay and Mehedi above.
 In the Application, the applicant states that they had a disagreement with the respondent when the applicant told two clients, who had received poor care from another employee, to file complaints with the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). Subsequently, the respondent terminated the applicant’s employment. The applicant alleges “I was discriminated against and faced reprisal because I spoke out on behalf of my clients who were complaining to me about the deplorable conditions they were facing constantly, I too noticed these conditions.” They further state that they received this poor treatment because they are “an outspoken black woman of African descent.” They believe that the respondent discriminated and reprised against them “as I am the only black woman of African descent that works at this office… singling me out and targeting me unfairly and unlawfully.”
 In response to the Notice, the applicant indicated that the respondent called them to a meeting to discuss the concern by the LHIN on February 7, 2022. Then, on February 15, the respondent terminated their employment. Again they failed to provide any alleged factual basis, or even anything from which I could draw an inference, to link their Code grounds to the alleged adverse treatment. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear general complaints related to work conditions or under the Employment Standards Act, SO 2000, unless there is a clear connection to a Code ground.
 As noted above, it is not enough for an applicant to assert that they have an enumerated ground(s) and have received adverse treatment at the hands of the respondent. To come within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicant must provide some factual basis to link the respondent’s conduct to their Code-enumerated ground(s). A bald assertion that the adverse treatment they received was owing to their enumerated ground(s) is not enough to provide the required factual basis. While indirect or circumstantial evidence can be used to infer discrimination, in the absence of any specific overt comments or behaviour (see Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155), the applicant has not provided sufficient context here to create that connection. By her own description, she is an employee who has complained to management about numerous issues, threatened in the past to file complaints about the company to various government bodies, and now, has caused the employer to be investigated by the LHIN through her actions.
 The reprisal protections in the Code only apply to the 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.
 As to the allegation of reprisal, while the employee made complaints to management, and then experienced adverse treatment, her complaints did not relate “to the complainant having claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Code.” See Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878, para 34. Rather, her complaints focus on employment standards issues, work conditions, and the level of service provided to clients by co-workers. Specifically, the applicant states that “I told my supervisor about my clients unfair and deplorable conditions and told her I’m against that treatment of clients.”
 The applicant has not provided facts to establish the presence of any of the three actions of a respondent noted above. It is my conclusion that the complaints cited by the applicant appear to reflect strictly employment standards specific reprisals rather than Code based reprisal. Thus, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the issue of reprisal.
 In the circumstances of this case, I find that the applicant has failed to provide a factual basis beyond a bald assertion which links their Code ground(s) to the respondent’s actions, nor that establishes reprisal as defined in the Code. Accordingly, the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.https://canlii.ca/t/jxd1h