Tapak v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 369

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Tapak Applicant

-and-

Windsor Police Service Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: February 18, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 369

Indexed as: Tapak v. Windsor Police Service

1The applicant filed an Application on July 30, 2009 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 in the areas of goods, services and facilities, on the basis of creed.

2On November 23, 2009, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which asked for submissions from the applicant on the issue of its jurisdiction and how the Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the Application appeared to describe events that may have occurred more than a year before the date of the Application. In addition, the Tribunal requested that the applicant identify the actions of certain named individuals that she alleges amounted to discrimination on the basis of creed.

3The applicant responded to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss on December 21, 2009. The totality of the material filed indicates that at least two allegations are within the one-year period set out in s.34 of the Code. The applicant states that police attended at her home on more than one occasion in regard to an ongoing tenant dispute, with the approximate dates being June 12 and 18, 2009.

4The applicant alleges that Officers Burt and Sorelli heard the applicant and her husband (who self-identify as Catholics) refer to God, and saw a shrine in their home. Generally, the applicant alleges that she complained to the police that she and her husband were being harassed by the other tenants, that they were not believed by the police officers because of her creed-related behaviour and that therefore the harassment was not dealt with. The applicant also claims that there are notations in police reports or records that say that she and her husband have “mental issues”, and that those notations were made because of creed-related behaviour.

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, 2008 HRTO 381; Morin v. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58, 2008 HRTO 58; Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63, 2008 HRTO 63. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect to the application: Rule 13.5.

6It appears to me that at least part of this Application has to do with timely allegations concerning matters related to an area and a ground included in the Code. It is not plain and obvious to me that all of the allegations are beyond Tribunal jurisdiction.

7My finding here does not remove the possibility that at least some of the Application may raise matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide.