Grant v. Tierney, 2011 HRTO 1207

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Suzanne Grant

Applicant

-and-

Suzanne Tierney

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: June 23, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1207

Indexed as: Grant v. Tierney

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Suzanne Grant, Applicant ) Self-represented

Background

1The applicant filed this Application on May 5, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services or facilities on the grounds of disability.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. The purpose of this Decision is to address whether the Application should be dismissed at this preliminary stage because it is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

3Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application (NOID). The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

4On January 31, 2011, the Tribunal Registrar sent a NOID to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination allegedly committed by the respondent based on any of the grounds listed in the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions to identify the specific acts, and an explanation why the Application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

5The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on June 6, 2011. The applicant states in those submissions that, "I feel that my human rights were violated by Suzanne Tierney, because she went digging in my purse without my permission". The applicant goes on to reiterate essentially the same narrative provided with her Application.

Decision

6The Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390 and Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society, 2009 HRTO 1769. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to dealing with disputes that properly fall under the Code.

7Section 1 of the Code reads:

Services – Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

In Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1989] 1SCR 143, the Supreme Court of Canada defined "discrimination" as,

a distinction which, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, has an effect which imposes disadvantages not imposed upon others or which withholds or limits access to advantages available to other members of society.

8As noted above, the applicant claims discrimination based on disability, but does not explain how a distinction can be seen between how she was treated by the respondent and how that respondent treated other individuals who do not have a disability. For example, in what appears to be the applicant's key allegation concerning the respondent's unauthorized search of the applicant's purse, she fails to explain how the treatment she received is distinguishable from that received by other persons. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant has not provided any evidence which makes out a claim of discrimination pursuant to the Code.

9An Application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the application and any other submissions that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction: Patterson v. MPW Industrial Service, 2010 HRTO 2140.

Order

10Based on the Application and applicant's submissions, it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Application is therefore dismissed.