Muntaha Hannona v. The Co-operators Insurance, 2011 HRTO 1179

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Muntaha Hannona

Applicant

-and-

The Co-operators Insurance

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: June 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1179

Indexed as: Hannona v. The Co-operators Insuranceo

1The applicant filed this Application on September 2, 2010 alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of sex and reprisal, contrary to s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2On April 13, 2011, 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) because the narrative within it did not identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

3Briefly, the applicant alleges that she had a dispute with her insurance company because it sent out a person to do an inspection of her home who was not the individual who she had been told would be sent. She escalated this dispute and when it was not resolved to her satisfaction, advised the respondent that she was going to be cancelling her insurance with it.

4Two months later, unable to get business insurance from another carrier, she contacted the respondent and said she would be renewing with it. At that point she was told that the respondent had decided not to renew her insurance because she had cancelled her home insurance with it. There is no allegation that the respondent's actions were because of any prohibited ground under the Code.

5In response to the NOID the applicant wrote that she experienced daily racism living in the community of Barrie, but did not allege any specific act of racism on the part of the respondent. In any event, race is not listed as a ground in her Application.

6In addition, the applicant alleged the respondent reprised against her by telling other carriers not to sell her insurance because she had complained. Assuming this is true, it still does not amount to reprisal under s. 8 of the Code as that provision protects persons from reprisal for enforcing or claiming a right under the Code. As specified above, the applicant has failed to articulate any right under the Code she was enforcing or claiming. The Code does not specify a stand alone "right" to insurance.

7The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from the Code. For the reasons discussed above, none of the allegations are within the jurisdiction of the Code and, therefore, the Tribunal. ln light of the failure of the applicant to make allegations that are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Application is dismissed.