HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Edward Atamanchuk
Applicant
- and-
City of Hamilton and Law Society of Upper Canada
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Atamanchuk v. Hamilton (city)
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 July 7, 2009 alleging discrimination because of disability and reprisal in the areas of housing, goods, services and facilities, and contracts.
BACKGROUND
2On September 8, 2009 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss on the basis that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application does not indicate how the respondents’ alleged conduct related to his right to be free of reprisal within the meaning of the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions within 30 days addressing the issue of whether or not his concerns of reprisal raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The Tribunal’s letter noted that, if the applicant did not file written submissions, the Tribunal would make its decision based on the information in the Application.
3No submissions were received from the applicant in response to the Tribunal’s September 8, 2009 Notice.
DECISION
4The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender, race). Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals as follows:
“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 for so doing.”
5Based on a review of the Application, it appears the applicant is alleging a broad range of misconduct, including “corruption” and “major cover ups”, by various organizations and several individuals. The applicant clearly feels that he has been treated unfairly, but he does not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to a Code ground, or because of an attempt on his part to claim and enforce his Code rights, or his refusal to infringe the Code rights of others. 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 ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated.
6Given that the Application lacks sufficient information regarding the ground or the basis of the alleged Code violation, the Tribunal cannot proceed with this Application. Consequently, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.
7In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of November, 2009
“Signed By”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair
2