Dioba v. Gardio, 2009 HRTO 1682

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Nacon Dioba Applicant

-and-

Adriano Gardio Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 15, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1682 Indexed as: Dioba v. Gardio

1This is an Application filed on August 25, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that he was subjected to discrimination and reprisal by the respondent in the area of "goods, services and facilities" on the basis of his race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and sexual orientation.

2After receipt and review of the Application, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on September 3, 2009. This letter notified the applicant that it appeared the Application may be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the Application did not indicate how the alleged circumstances came within the protected area of "goods, services and facilities" as covered by the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to file submissions explaining how the respondent's conduct related to the protected area cited in his Application.

3In response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant submits that "in attempt to play the sage" he initiated the complaint against the respondent to see if the respondent would apologize so that the applicant could file another complaint against a different entity and use the respondent as a witness in that complaint. The applicant notes that, if the respondent had apologized, he had intended to ask the Tribunal to dismiss this Application.

4The Tribunal's jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation, contracts and employment) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and age, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any basis upon which he alleges his rights under the Code were violated by this respondent in the protected area of "goods, services and facilities".

5Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and this Application is dismissed.