HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Paul Mignault
Applicant
-and-
Regatta Place Co-operative Homes
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Mignault v. Regatta Place Co-operative Homes
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Paul Mignault, Applicant ) Self-represented
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed this Application on May 8, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and harassment in respect of accommodation on the grounds of receipt of public assistance and reprisal or threat of reprisal.
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 Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The NOID is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.
4On July 6, 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 August 5, 2011, essentially reasserting the allegations contained in the Application. The applicant states in those submissions that, “The respondent has discriminated against me during the eviction procedure…”. The applicant goes on to allege, in essence, that his eviction from the respondent’s facility was done contrary to the respondent’s bylaws and that he has been slandered by a resident of the respondent and by members of the respondent’s board of directors.
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 2 of the Code reads in part:
(1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of…the receipt of public assistance….
(2) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of…the receipt of public assistance…
Section 8 of the Code reads:
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.
8I find that the applicant has failed to allege discrimination within the meaning of the Code, and therefore the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. As noted above, the applicant claims discrimination and harassment based on the fact he is in receipt of social assistance and that he is being reprised against for asserting his rights under the Code, but does not allege any distinction can be seen between how he was treated by the respondent and how that respondent treated other individuals who are not in receipt of social assistance. For example, in what appears to be the applicant’s key allegation concerning the respondent’s procedure in evicting him from the co-op, he fails to explain how the treatment he received is distinguishable from that received by other members of the co-op who have been evicted. I therefore find that the applicant has not made an allegation of discrimination within the meaning of 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. See, for example, Patterson v. MPW Industrial Service, 2010 HRTO 2140, and Grant above.
10Based 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.
ORDER
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of August, 2011.
“signed by”
Alan G. Smith
Member