Barker v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 1156

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Michael Barker Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: May 21, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1156 Indexed as: Barker v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, race, sex, marital status and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground. The applicant has not identified a social area of discrimination, but states that the Application involves a "question of constitutional validity and/or law pertaining directly to standards used by O.D.S.P. [Ontario Disability Support Program] that are unconstitutional and also discriminatory 'co-habitation'".

2The respondent has filed a Response in which it seeks an early dismissal of the Application for incompleteness, because it is frivolous and vexatious, and because the Application seems to be based on the social area of housing and the respondent does not provide housing.

3The applicant has filed a Reply.

4In an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 703, the Tribunal found it was not apparent from the materials filed, including the Reply, that the Application raises issues of discrimination based on a ground prohibited by the Code. The nature of the alleged discrimination was unclear and the applicant had not clearly identified a social area of discrimination (in response to question 6).

5As a result, the Tribunal sought further submissions from the applicant to explain:

a. The social area in which he is alleging discrimination (question 6);

b. The nature of the alleged discrimination, including what he feels the respondent did to discriminate against him, who was involved, when it happened, and where it happened; and

c. How this alleged discrimination (the respondent's treatment of him) relates to the applicant's disability, sex, marital status and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground.

6The applicant filed submissions in response to the Interim Decision. In these submissions, he directs the Tribunal to passages of documents that had already been filed and writes:

Have not alleged discrimination as an argument of litigation under or of the HRC, Ont. Let me clear this up now Not interested.

7Later, he states that the Application is more likely than not outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. He asks to be directed to the appropriate venue for filing a complaint.

8As I indicated in the earlier Interim Decision, the Tribunal does not have a general power to decide whether the respondent treated the applicant fairly or appropriately. The Tribunal's powers relate only to alleged discrimination and violations of the Code. In other words, while the applicant has clearly stated that he feels mistreated by the respondent, to fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction (power to decide), he must also explain how this alleged mistreatment relates to a ground and social area under the Code.

9Based on the materials filed, I cannot conclude that there is a relationship between the Code and the allegations contained in the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.

10It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to provide advice to litigants about the availability or appropriateness of other venues. The Tribunal draws the applicant's attention to the Applicant's Guide, available on the Tribunal's website or from the Registrar's office. The Guide, at pages 2 – 3, provides a list of resources available to applicants before the Tribunal.