Sinclair-Day v. Durham Regional School Board, 2010 HRTO 1687

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Norman George Sinclair-Day

Applicant

-and-

Duham Regional School Board, Regional Municipality of Durham, Canadian Mental Health Association, Durham Regional Police Services, Denise House, Davpart, Rossco’s Sweet Shoppe, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General and John Slugg

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: August 13, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1687

Indexed as: Sinclair-Day v. Durham Regional School Board

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The application alleges discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, disability, family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance and reprisal or threat of reprisal in employment, housing, goods, services and facilities, contracts and membership in a vocational association. Nine respondents are identified, most of whom are organizations along with one business and an individual.

2The Application contained a 95 page narrative beginning with events that are alleged to have taken place in 1963 and which the applicant contends may be continuing to the present.

3The narrative contains allegations that the applicant suffered numerous attacks and assaults from a number of people and organizations since his birth and that both he and his son have been targeted by the named respondents and others acting on their behalf and have suffered various forms ill treatment over the years as a result of the respondents working in unison to conspire to cause the applicant harm.

4Parts of the narrative also makes mention of alleged assaults, attacks and attempts to injure the applicant by individuals and organizations not named in the Application as respondents, including members of his own family.

5The Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant on the issue of its jurisdiction to hear this Application. The applicant was directed to explain how his Application raised matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide.

6Since the call for submissions, the Tribunal has received several sets of documents and discs from the applicant that expand on the allegations described by him in the original Application and which add further allegations of ill treatment.

7The documents and discs contain a large volume of material that the applicant describes as evidence of problems he and his son have experienced at the hands of a variety of people and institutions, some named as respondents and others identified and described but not named as respondents.

8A review of the Application and the additional submissions shows that some of the events described by the applicant date back to 1963, shortly after he was born. Although asked to provide reasons for the delay in filing, there is no cogent explanation in the Application or subsequent submissions filed of why the applicant has waited over four decades to raise some of these issues.

9Many of the allegations concern the applicant’s perception of the conduct of those around him. He speculates about the reasons for their actions and describes the conduct of people and organizations that are named as respondents and others that have not been named as “abuse”, “manipulation”, “assaults”, “bullying”, “harassment”, “hate crimes” and “conspiracies”.

10The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate relationships between parties or to delve into general claims of unfair conduct or treatment, but hears applications that allege violations of the Code.

11While it is clear that the applicant believes that he has been unfairly treated and harmed by a number of persons and institutions over many years, there is nothing in the material submitted that raises matters that the Tribunal has the power to decide.

12In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed.