HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Christianson
Applicant
-and-
Ministry of Community and Social Services – Ontario Disability Support Program and Grace Holsapple
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Christianson v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Michael Christianson, Applicant ) Self-represented
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed this Application on April 11, 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 June 29, 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 by email in response to the NOID on July 29, 2011. The applicant states in those submissions that:
…It is plain and obvious that the respondent Ministry of Community and Social Services denied the applicant the service of performing an “Internal Review” when the applicant requested it, in a discriminatory and condescending, patronizing manner with the added comment that when the applicant was being treated worse than a criminal that the applicant’s request was somehow “frivolous”, not being serious or of great importance;….
ANALYSIS
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, Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2009 HRTO 1769, and Grant v. Tierney, 2011 HRTO 1207. 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.
8Fundamentally, the applicant fails to explain how he was discriminated against so as to engage the Code. In Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 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.
9As noted above, the applicant claims discrimination based on disability, specifically mental illness, but does not explain how a distinction can be seen between how he was treated by the respondents and how those respondents treated other individuals who are not suffering from a mental illness. For example, in what appears to be the applicant’s key allegation concerning the institutional respondent’s procedure in dealing with a request for internal review, he fails to explain how the treatment he received is distinguishable from that received by other persons. I find therefore that the applicant has not provided any evidence which makes out a claim of discrimination pursuant to the Code.
10An 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. See, for example, Patterson v. MPW Industrial Service, 2010 HRTO 2140, and Grant, above.
ORDER
11Based on the Application and applicant’s submissions, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Application is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11^th^ day of August, 2011.
“Signed by”
Alan G. Smith
Member