Kandid v. Heckhausen, 2009 HRTO 1920

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kamea Kandid Applicant

-and-

Rosetta Heckhausen and Georges Haroutiun Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: November 10, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1920 Indexed as: Kandid v. Heckhausen

1This is an Application filed on August 24, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). This Interim Decision establishes a process for receiving submissions from the parties on the issue of whether or not the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the matters raised in the Application.

2The Application arises from an advertisement in the December 2008 edition of Applied Arts Canada's Visual Communications Magazine ("Applied Arts"). The applicant alleges that the respondents (who are identified as the editor and publisher of Applied Arts) have discriminated against her in respect of goods, services and facilities on several grounds including race, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, sexual orientation, family status, marital status and age by running an advertisement that she alleges is offensive. The applicant states that Applied Arts is published with the assistance of the Government of Canada and that taxpayers should not support publications which offend women, religion and society at large. The applicant explains that she has been discriminated against based on race and related grounds because there are no members of visible minorities in the advertisement. She further explains that she has been discriminated against on the basis of sex and creed because the advertisement is offensive to women and attacks White women and Christian clergy.

3Based on the allegations made and the material filed, I find there is an issue of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter. While the respondents will be provided with a copy of the Application and this Interim Decision, there is no requirement that they file a full response to the Application at this time.

4The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to the social areas, grounds and categories of discrimination set out in the Code. The applicant has based her Application on discrimination in services, goods and facilities.

5Under s. 1, every person has a right to equal treatment 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.

6Having regard to the nature of the applicant's Application, it is not obviously apparent how her allegations fall within s. 1 of the Code, or how the respondents discriminated against her on the grounds stated. The applicant should explain how her Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. In particular, the applicant should explain how the alleged actions of the respondents amount to discrimination with respect to a good, service or facility.

7The applicant's submissions should be served on the respondents and filed with the Tribunal in accordance with the Rules within 21 days of receiving this Interim Decision.

8The respondents may file a response to the applicant's submissions on jurisdiction within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9Following receipt of the applicant's further submissions on the issues identified above, the Tribunal will consider whether to dismiss or proceed with the Application, or give further directions on the processing of the Application.

10The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant's Guide, available on the Tribunal's website or from the Registrar's office. Pages 2-3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to her. The website address and the Registrar's contact information are set out on the cover page of this decision.

11I am not seized.