Donald Cameron v. Irais Leon, 2009 HRTO 1011

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Donald Cameron

Applicant

-and-

Irais Leon

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: July 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1011

Indexed as: Cameron v. Leon

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 27, 2009, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The Application was not delivered to the respondent. On April 6, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because it does not allege an area of discrimination under the Code. The Notice gave the applicant 30 days to file written submissions. No submissions were filed.

2The applicant claimed not to have received the Notice. On May 29, 2009, the Tribunal sent a further copy of the Notice to the applicant. The applicant was given a further 30 days to file written submissions. No submissions have been filed.

3The applicant’s allegations apparently relate to testimony the respondent gave as a witness in a family law proceeding in Superior Court between the applicant and his former spouse. While the applicant did not indicate which social area his allegations relate to, he completed Form 1-C, which focuses on the area of “Goods, Services and Facilities”. He checked “other” in response to the question about the type of service, good or facility to which the Application relates, and described it as follows: “Used my disability to my detriment in court.” He goes on to self-identify as an individual who suffers “from P.T.S.D. due to military service” alleging that the respondent “stated in court that my disability makes me unfit to be a father. This is not true.”

4The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all claims of unfair treatment. Its jurisdiction is based on the provisions of the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships such as the provision of goods, services and facilities, housing, contract relations and employment. The Code does not regulate relationships between individuals which do not have a basis in one of these social areas.

5In the present case, the respondent was a witness called to give evidence for the applicant’s former spouse. On the basis of the material before me, I cannot find that the relationship between the applicant and respondent is covered by any of the social relationships specified in the Code.

6Given the circumstances, I find that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s allegations. The Application is dismissed.