Lorie Bottos v. Council of Carleton University Students’ Association and Brittany Smyth, 2009 HRTO 1016

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lorie Bottos

Applicant

-and-

Council of Carleton University Students’ Association and Brittany Smyth

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: July 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1016

Indexed as: Bottos v. Council of Carleton Students’ Association

1This is an Application to the Tribunal filed on December 30, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). It appears from the narrative contained in the Application documents that a decision made by the respondents to discontinue support for a charitable organization, since rescinded, led the applicant to file this Application.

2Pursuant to an Interim Decision in this matter, 2009 HRTO 678, the applicant was invited to submit written submissions on the issue of which goods services and facilities the respondents provided to the applicant and how the events described amount to discrimination against him within the meaning of the Code. The applicant’s written submissions have now been received.

3Section 34(1) of the Code provides that a person who believes that any of his or her rights under Part I of the Code have been infringed may apply to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships such as housing, employment and the provision of services, goods or facilities.

4The Application alleges that the applicant was discriminated against on the basis of race, colour and sex in receipt of goods, services or facilities. He asserts that as a white male, he may have to avail himself of the services of the charitable organization involved. He goes on to argue that if the respondents’ resolution to discontinue their support for the charitable organization, since rescinded, is not made an example of, others may cease supporting the charity and it may find itself short of funds in the future and unable to provide a service to him and others.

5Having reviewed the material before me, I find that the decision by the respondents to make charitable contributions or support a charitable organization does not amount to the provision of a good, service or facility to the applicant within the meaning of the Code. The possible consequences to the applicant of any decision by the respondents not to make a charitable contribution are entirely speculative.

6The Tribunal finds that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.