S.O. v. Joanne Chapman School of Dance, 2011 HRTO 1635

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

S.O. by her Next Friend D.O.

Applicant

-and-

Joanne Chapman School of Dance

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: August 31, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1635

Indexed as: S.O. v. Joanne Chapman School of Dance

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on February 17, 2011 alleging reprisal with respect to services, goods and facilities.

2By correspondence dated June 17, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The applicant was advised that, based on a review of the Application, the Application appears to fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code and does not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve. Specifically, the applicant’s narrative failed to describe or explain any specific acts of discrimination or reprisal allegedly committed by the respondent in relation a Code-protected ground.

3The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions no later than July 17, 2011 as to the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant was also advised that the Tribunal may consider a failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason.

4The applicant did not file submissions with respect to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

DECISION

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and age, 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.”

6An application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on a respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Based on the Application and the applicant’s narrative, I am satisfied that that the applicant’s allegations do not raise Code-protected grounds and do not relate to concerns with respect to reprisal as defined under the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code.

7I further find that the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence and the timeline for providing written submissions has elapsed. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.