Laurie Brown v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Rick Saurer and Susan Avant, 2009 HRTO 329

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laurie Brown

Applicant

-and-

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Rick Saurer and Susan Avant

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 329

Indexed as: Brown v. Evangelical Lutheran Church

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on November 20, 2008, alleging discrimination by the respondents. On February 4, 2009 the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss under Rule 13.2 of its Rules of Procedure. The Notice indicated that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the events described in the Application occurred outside of Ontario. The applicant was invited to make written submissions on why the Application should not be dismissed.

2The applicant communicated to the Tribunal on a number of occasions in response to the Notice. Unfortunately, the information set out in these communications is not very clear. However, she appears to say that while some of the events in question occurred outside of Ontario, others did not.

3The Rule 13 Notice is issued before the Tribunal delivers an application to the respondents. The Tribunal will only dismiss the application if it is plain and obvious the respondent falls under federal jurisdiction: Morin v. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58; Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63. A decision not to dismiss an application and to continue to process the application is not a final decision on the issue of its jurisdiction.

4In this case, the applicant’s reply to the Tribunal’s Notice leaves some question as to whether or not the events giving rise to the Application occurred in Ontario. In my view, it is accordingly not plain and obvious on the face of the Application that the events in question do not fall with provincial jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with the Application. This means that the Application will be sent to the respondents. The respondents are required to respond to the Application and may also provide further information regarding whether or not the events in question occurred in Ontario.

5This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application.

6I am not seized of this matter.