Lérus v. Community Recreation North Toronto, 2010 HRTO 2490

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anna Lérus

Applicant

-and-

Community Recreation North Toronto (Swimming Pool)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: December 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2490

Indexed as: Lérus v. Community Recreation North Toronto

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on June 30, 2010 pursuant to section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in the areas of services, goods and facilities on the basis of race and sex.

2The applicant alleges that an incident occurred at the premises of the respondent and that she was subjected to comments which were based on harmful assumptions and stigmatized her. The applicant alleges that, because she is “a black single, young parent”, certain actions were taken towards her. The applicant indicates that she believes the alleged mistreatment was “racist”, in part, because the incident was handled publicly notwithstanding her request to handle it privately.

3On November 5, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) the Application because it appeared the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Notice indicated that the Application and the narrative appeared to fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent and does not explain how the incidents described in the Application are connected to Code grounds. The Tribunal’s Notice directed the applicant to file written submissions within 30 days with respect to the jurisdictional issue. The Notice stated that if no submissions were received, the Tribunal would make its decision based on the information already before the Tribunal or may consider the Application to be abandoned.

4No submissions were received from the applicant in response to the Notice.

DECISION

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is delivered to respondents, 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, Carbone v. Bruzzese, 2009 HRTO 2042.

6Based on the information contained in the Application, I find that it is not plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Without deciding whether any of alleged circumstances comes within Code protection, I find that the applicant’s allegations of discrimination on the basis of race and sex may raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. I am satisfied that the Application should be delivered to the respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

7The Registrar is directed to serve the Application and a copy of this Interim Decision on the respondent, and to deliver a Notice of Application requiring a Response. This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application.

8I am not seized of this matter.