HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kenneth Demerling
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto Social Housing Unit, Shelter Support
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Demerling v. City of Toronto Social Housing Unit, Shelter Support
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Kenneth Demerling, Applicant ) Self-represented
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed this Application on November 1, 2010, 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.
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 12, 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. Essentially, the applicant alleges he is being discriminated against because the rent geared to income formula used to calculate his rent does not take into account the cost of electricity, whereas others renting accommodation from the respondent do have the electricity costs included in their rent geared to income formula.
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….
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 based on the fact he is in receipt of social assistance, but does not explain how 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. I therefore find that the applicant has not made an allegation of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.
9An Application may 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, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, Morin v. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58, and Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63.
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 25th day of August, 2011.
“Signed by”
Alan G. Smith
Member