Parkinson v. Carleton Condominium Corporation #43 (CCC43), 2011 HRTO 1209

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Parkinson

Applicant

• and-

Carleton Condominium Corporation # 43 (CCC43)

Respondent

decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1209

Indexed as: Parkinson v. Carleton Condominium Corporation #43 (CCC43)

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 he experienced reprisal in the area of housing. The applicant cited “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the only ground of discrimination in his Application.

2The applicant alleges that he was subjected to harassment and reprisal by the respondent when it required him and other high-rise apartment dwellers in the respondent condominium to remove protective weather stripping and draft blockers from their unit doors. The applicant alleges that the respondent’s directive presents an increased risk of toxic gas and smoke ingress. The applicant alleges this constitutes arbitrary interference with his privacy and home and jeopardizes his right to life, safety and security of the person in violation of his human rights.

3The respondent filed a Response on April 26, 2011. The respondent submits that the Application is solely based on alleged fire safety and smoke ingress issues and does not relate to any prohibited ground of the Code.

4On May 26, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) indicating that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction over the Application because, while the Application alleges reprisal, it does not explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to claiming and enforcing a right under the Code.

5On June 10, 2011, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID. The applicant maintains that he perceives he has experienced harassment by the respondent because of the requirement to remove weather stripping from his condominium door.

DECISION

6The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over every dispute or perceived unfairness. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based only on the Code, which prohibits against discrimination and harassment in specific areas (for example, services, goods and facilities, contracts, and employment) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, creed, marital status, gender and race, etc.). Section 8 of the Code prohibits reprisals as follows:

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 for so doing.

7In order to come within the section 8 of the Code, the applicant must demonstrate that his concerns relate to:

• Claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• Instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• Refusing to infringe the Code-related right of another person.

8The applicant clearly feels that he his security of the person and right to freedom from arbitrary interference are at risk; however, but he does not allege or explain how these concerns occurred in relation to a Code ground, or because of an attempt on his part to claim and enforce his Code rights, or his refusal to infringe the Code-related rights of others. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated.

9The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate disputes, but hears only applications that allege contraventions of the Code. The Application does not allege that the respondent discriminated or harassed the applicant because of his race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, marital status, family status, etc. It also does not allege that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.

10Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application, and it is therefore dismissed.

11I am not seized of this matter.