Sharma Sugarman v. Noreen Sugarman, 2010 HRTO 1049

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sharma Sugarman

Applicant

-and-

Noreen Sugarman

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: May 11, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1049

Indexed as: Sugarman v. Sugarman

Reasons for Decision

1This Decision deals with whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the allegations made in this Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”).

2The Application identifies the respondent as the applicant’s adopted mother. The Application concerns allegations regarding the respondent’s conduct in respect of various issues related to custody of the applicant’s daughter.

3On March 10, 2010, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to the applicant because it appeared that the Application did not allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code and did not therefore raise an issue that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to resolve. The applicant was invited to make submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the Application and she filed submissions on March 15, 2010.

4The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with all allegations of unfair or differential treatment. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over those areas of alleged discrimination that are set out in the Code. These are: employment, housing, goods and services or facilities, and membership in a vocational association.

5The Application indicated that the area of discrimination in this case was housing. Section 2 of the Code deals with discrimination in respect of housing and provides as follows:

2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

(2) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

6The applicant concedes that section 2 of the Code does not apply to the facts of her case. She submits that housing might nevertheless apply because part of the alleged discrimination is based on the fact that she lives in a low income neighbourhood. She asks the Tribunal to broaden its jurisdiction to include consideration of this Application.

7The Tribunal can only deal with Applications that allege an infringement of the Code. It has no power to deal with allegations of unfairness or differential treatment in areas other than those that are set out in the Code. Having reviewed the Application and the applicant’s submissions, I must conclude that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the allegations raised in the Application. The Application must accordingly be dismissed.