Mary Anne McMullen v. Scarborough Heights Coop, 2010 HRTO 2232

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Anne McMullen Applicant

-and-

Scarborough Heights Coop Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: November 9, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2232 Indexed as: McMullen v. Scarborough Heights Coop

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in housing in employment on the basis of receipt of social assistance and reprisal.

2The Application sets out in detail a number of allegations against another member of the respondent, who the applicant asserts is (or was) the president of the co-op. The issues appear to have started with a dispute about the alleged bullying of the applicant’s child by the child of this other individual. It is not necessary to describe the allegations in any detail. Suffice to say, none of the allegations in the Application appear to relate to a ground under the Code.

3On September 29, 2010, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the allegations in the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide). The applicant was advised that she was required to respond to the NOID within 30 days of September 29, 2010, but no submissions were received by the Tribunal in response.

4At no point in the applicant’s lengthy series of allegations in her Application and submissions concerning the respondent (and the individual member of the co-op), does the applicant refer to any differential treatment on the basis of a ground listed under the Code. This behaviour is collectively referred to as “bullying” but it appears to be in the nature of a personal dispute, unrelated to any ground under the Code.

5The Tribunal does not adjudicate general claims of unfairness or abusive conduct. There must be a nexus between the allegation of unfairness and/or abuse and a ground under the Code. In the absence of such a nexus, no violation of the Code can be found.

6With respect to the allegation of reprisal, section 8 of the Code states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.

7To successfully make out a claim of reprisal, the applicant must demonstrate that she experienced reprisal for:

• claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code:, or
• refusing to infringe the right of another person.

8Given that the applicant has failed to establish that the conduct at issue was related to a ground under the Code, her attempts to remedy this conduct cannot be said to be either “claiming” or “enforcing” a right under the Code. Likewise, there is nothing in her Application to suggest that she had instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that she was refusing to infringe the rights of another person.

9Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. The Application is dismissed.