Jacqueline Fobister v. Aamikkowish Non-Profit Housing Inc., 2010 HRTO 1605

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jacqueline Fobister

Applicant

-and-

Aamikkowish Non-Profit Housing Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: July 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1605

Indexed as: Fobister v. Aamikkowish Non-Profit Housing

1This is an Application filed on April 9, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in respect of accommodation on the basis of family status and age.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application (NOID).

3The Tribunal sent the applicant a NOID on June 11, 2010. The NOID indicates that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the events described in the Application fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The NOID directs the applicant to provide written submissions as to why her Application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The applicant has not provided any submissions as of the date of this Decision.

4The applicant provides a brief narrative of events in her Application. She alleges that she telephoned the respondent, a non-profit housing provider, on April 24, 2010 to enquire about the availability of a housing unit. According to the applicant, a staff person tells her that she recalls the applicant from a previous tenancy with the respondent and that the applicant will have to pay an outstanding maintenance bill if she wishes to return. The applicant describes how this staff person used to conduct annual unit inspections that the applicant found stressful because of their demanding nature. The applicant further recalls:

When we moved out we once again cleaned the house from top to bottom and repainted the house [.] my common-law spouse also bought replacement screens as our three kids had ruined them. The screens went missing and so we were billed for approximately $600 which we paid for. Even though we had repainted the entire house (off white/light grey) it was repainted over because it "wasn't the right colour"

5In another section of the Application the applicant alleges that she was denied housing due to her children having ruined the original screens. She also alleges that she was discriminated against on the grounds of age because she was "mistreated due to a lack of self assertiveness (being able to stick up for myself) unable to handle confrontational situations".

Decision

6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. Having reviewed the Application I am of the view that the applicant has failed to identify an act of discrimination related to a ground of the Code.

7The applicant has provided no indication why the telephone conversation of April 24, 2010 or any of her other dealings with the respondent may involve discrimination on the grounds of age. The narrative in the Application makes no reference to age whatsoever. The applicant's only reference to age is to suggest that she may have had difficulties because of a lack of self assertiveness or an inability to deal with confrontational situations. However, the applicant has not explained how these difficulties are related to age or how she was treated differently by the respondent because of her age.

8The applicant has not explained how any of the respondent's alleged actions are related to her status of being in a parent-child relationship. The applicant's allegations of discrimination based on family status appear to be in reference to her children's past behaviour. The applicant refers to her children having ruined window screens and that this had a financial impact on the applicant and her common-law partner. However, the applicant states that she and her common-law husband replaced the screens the children ruined and paid $600 more for replacement screens. Given the information before me I cannot identify a link between the respondent's alleged unwillingness to offer accommodation to the applicant and the past conduct of the applicant's children.

9Finally, I note that the Tribunal communicated to the applicant that it was intending to dismiss her Application because the events described in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The applicant has not provided any submissions to the Tribunal to explain how her Application relates to the Code's jurisdiction.

10I find it is plain and obvious that the Application does not fall under the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Application is therefore dismissed.