Lofters v. Ontario (Transportation), 2010 HRTO 1587

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Lofters

Applicant

-and-

Ministry of Transportation: Manager Driver Improvement Office

and Martha Otton

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: July 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1587

Indexed as: Lofters v. Ontario (Transportation)

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleges discrimination in employment, housing and goods, services and facilities on the basis of every ground. In addition, the Application alleges reprisal and threat of reprisal. The applicant makes general assertions about "discrimination" and specifically complains about a few incidents including his licence being suspended, getting a ticket for driving without insurance and not receiving pay as a monarch. The allegations are described as occurring over the period 1968 to February 11, 2010 and in Toronto and Winnipeg.

2On June 3, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("Notice") pursuant to Rule 13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The Notice stated that the Application appears to fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction for the following reasons:

While you have based your Application on discrimination in services, employment and housing and have identified all grounds being engaged, your Application does not explain how the respondent's conduct constitutes discrimination in the specific social areas and grounds identified.

Your Application provides that the alleged discrimination has been ongoing since 1968. This appears to suggest that all or a significant part of the Application may be filed beyond the time permitted under the Code. Subsections 34 (1) and (2) provide as follows:

"If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series."

A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

Your Application provides that the alleged discrimination occurred in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Toronto, Ontario. This appears to suggest that at least some of the events described in your Application occurred outside of Ontario.

3The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide submissions on these issues. In particular, the applicant was asked to explain:

What each of your allegations are and how each of the allegations constitutes discrimination and in what social area and on what ground;

The date of each incident of discrimination alleged and how the allegation is timely under the Code; and

Where each specific incident occurred and how any incidents that occurred outside of Ontario are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

4Further, the Tribunal indicated that the Tribunal would consider the submissions before deciding to dismiss or proceed with the Application. The Tribunal specifically indicated that it would be helpful if any written submissions were provided on double spaced lined paper or typed.

5The applicant has filed further submissions on June 11, 2010. The submissions do not provide any further clarification of the applicant's allegations other than reiterating that he wishes to be paid for his services as a monarch.

DECISION

6I do not find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Application.

7The Tribunal's jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside those areas or grounds listed in the Code.

8In the Application, the applicant describes various events but does not explain how the events constitute discrimination on the grounds cited. For example, the applicant complains about his receipt of a ticket for operating a motor vehicle without insurance, the suspension of his licence based on a doctor's "unprofessional" advice and the absence of pay for his duties as a monarch, but the applicant has failed to explain how these incidents constitute discrimination on the grounds and the social areas identified in the Code.

9In another instance, the applicant has made a general statement that on July 13, 2009, a group of TTC and Metro Police Forces sparked another set of "discrimination" based on improper conduct, colour, race and religion but no particulars of "discrimination" are provided. While the applicant goes on to refer to making an application to access "information and privacy services" at Metro Police, he suggests that he received a document in April 2009. It does not appear that the allegation engages the Code.

10Further, while the applicant has been provided with an opportunity to explain his allegations, the letter received June 11, 2010 does not assist in explaining the content, timing or geographic location of his allegations.

11Based on the material submitted, it is simply not possible, as the Application is framed, for the Tribunal to understand the nature of the applicant's allegations and how they relate to violations of the Code on the grounds cited and by the respondents identified.

12I therefore find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.