Courtland v. Roseland Public School, 2009 HRTO 959

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Maximus Courtland by his next friend Heather Courtland

Applicant

-and-

Roseland Public School

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: July 3, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 959 Indexed as: Courtland v. Roseland Public School

1This is an Application filed on May 1, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleges discrimination in educational services because of reprisal. It alleges that the applicant was "accused" of engaging in an exchange of touching with another student. It also alleges the applicant was asked to begin to use a separate washroom from the other students.

2The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss advising that the Application does not appear to allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code and therefore does not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make written submissions explaining how the Application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The applicant did not deliver any submissions and the time for doing so has now passed.

3Section 8 of the Code provides 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.

4On its face, the Application does not allege any facts which come within the scope of section 8. The applicant does not allege that he attempted to claim or enforce his rights under the Code, that he instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that he refused to infringe the right of another person under the Code.

5The Tribunal's jurisdiction is based upon the Code, which prohibits discrimination in goods, services and facilities, including educational services, on the basis of protected grounds listed in the Code. It does not have a general power to inquire into educational relationships and difficulties that may occur in those relationships.

6The applicant has not provided a basis for his claim of reprisal that comes within the meaning of the Code, nor has he set out any other ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges the Code was violated. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.

7The Application is dismissed.