Douglas Olson v. Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society, 2010 HRTO 1602

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Douglas Olson

Applicant

-and-

Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: July 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1602

Indexed as: Olsen v. Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination on the basis of family status and marital status. The Application also alleges reprisals or threat of reprisals.

2In essence, the Application outlines concerns about the respondent’s alleged failure to grant access to information and its allegedly problematic complaint procedure. The applicant does not, however, identify a social area of discrimination (for example, employment, housing, or services), nor does he explain why his concerns with the respondent engage a prohibited ground (for example, family status or marital status) under the Code.

3On June 14, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Notice states:

The Application alleges discrimination and/or harassment on the grounds of family status and marital status, and reprisal or threat of reprisal. However, a review of the Application, and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination, fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

In addition, with respect to the “reprisal or threat of reprisal” allegation, the Application does not explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to any of the following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; or, instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32; Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273.

4The applicant filed written submissions in response to the Notice.

5I have carefully reviewed all of the material filed by the applicant. It is not apparent from these materials why the applicant feels he was discriminated against based on a ground prohibited by the Code. The nature of the alleged discrimination is unclear and the applicant has not clearly identified a social area of discrimination, nor has he explained how the respondent’s acts discriminated against him on the basis of a prohibited ground.

6The 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.

7Based on the materials filed by the applicant, I cannot conclude that there is a relationship between the Code and the allegations contained in the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.