Stewart v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 1144

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Vera Stewart Applicant

-and-

Royal Canadian Legion Branch # 228 and Casey Uitbeyerse Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: July 27, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1144 Indexed as: Stewart v. Royal Canadian Legion

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Vera Stewart, Applicant ) T. Jack Atienza, Representative

1This Decision addresses whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application, dated May 22, 2009, alleges that the respondents barred the applicant from their services and facilities because of an incident in which she raised an issue in regard to a perception that a patron was intoxicated. The applicant checked off only "reprisal or threat of reprisal" as the alleged ground for her Application. The narrative part of her Application makes no mention of any of the personal characteristics listed in the Code as a reason for the treatment alleged.

2The respondents made a request for early dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, on the basis that there was "no connection between the allegations of reprisal and any attempt by the applicant to enforce her rights under the Code". The Registrar requested that the applicant make written submissions addressing the respondents' position that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

3Written submissions have now been received from the Applicant's representative. The Applicant maintains that she was banned from Legion premises "for no justifiable reason", but does not allege that this action was taken on the basis of any of the grounds noted in s.1 of the Code.

DECISION

4Section 8 of the Code, which prohibits reprisals or threat of reprisals, states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

5It is clear from the terms of section 8 that a claim of reprisal cannot stand on its own without a link to facts involving an attempt to claim or enforce a right under the Code, institute or participate a proceeding under the Code, or refuse to infringe a Code right of another person.

6The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate relations between service providers and consumers, but hears only applications that allege violations of the Code. See: Matthews v. Stanley, 2008 HRTO 372. The Code prohibits discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability. None of the applicant's submissions claim that her treatment by the respondent occurred because of any of the protected grounds listed in the Code, nor does she make a claim of constructive discrimination relating to any of those grounds.

7I am satisfied that the applicant has not raised issues that are in the Tribunal's power to decide.

8The Application is dismissed.