Whiteley v. Osprey Media Publishing, 2009 HRTO 1934

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alan Whiteley

Applicant

-and-

Osprey Media Publishing Inc. and Sun Media Corporation

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: November 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1934

Indexed as: Whiteley v. Osprey Media Publishing

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 alleges that the applicant was discriminated against on the basis of place of origin in goods, services or facilities by the publication of an editorial in the newspaper, The County Weekly News, on July 9, 2009, which purported to divide residents of Prince Edward County into two distinct groups, “locals” and “imports”. The applicant explains that the publication characterized a “local” as a “Prince Edward County native” and a “true County resident” whereas an “import” was characterized as “a know-it-all city slicker” who moved to Prince Edward County bringing “urban sensibilities, baggage, gripes, niggles and attitudes”. The applicant alleges that on the basis of this clear discrimination, place of origin, the editorial vilified “import doctors” and “real estate types” who oppose the installation of wind turbines versus “locals” who take a contrary view.

3Initially, on August 18, 2009, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant indicating that it appeared the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the respondent appeared to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated business or service and sought submissions regarding the same.

4No submissions were received from the applicant in the time period specified.

5Based on the allegations made, I find there is an issue of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter, although not on the basis outlined in the Registrar’s original letter.

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the social areas, grounds and categories of discrimination set out in the Code. The applicant has based his Application on section 1 (discrimination in services, goods and facilities) and section 13 (announced intention to discriminate).

7Under 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.

8Section 13 of the Code provides:

13.(1) A right under Part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays before the public or causes the publication or display before the public of any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other similar representation that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to infringe a right under Part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under Part I. R.S.O. 1990,c.H.19,s.13(1).

(2) Subsection (1) shall not interfere with freedom of expression of opinion. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s.13(2).

9Having regard to the nature of the Application, it is not apparent that the subject matter of the allegations would fall within the ambit of the Code. Accordingly, the applicant is asked to provide submissions as to how his allegations raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. In particular, the applicant should explain how not being “a local” constitutes a place of origin within the meaning of the Code; how the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of his place of origin; how the content of an editorial amounts to discrimination with respect to goods, services or facilities; and how section 13 applies to the alleged conduct including subsections (1) and (2).

10The 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.

11While 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. However, the respondents may file a response to the applicant’s submissions on jurisdiction within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

12Following receipt of the 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.

13The 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 him. The website address and the Registrar’s contact information are set out on the cover page of this decision.

14I am not seized.