Gavin Surgenor v. St. Lawrence College, 2011 HRTO 1731

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gavin Surgenor

Applicant

-and-

St. Lawrence College

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 20, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1731

Indexed as: Surgenor v. St. Lawrence College

1The applicant filed this Application on May 24, 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 services and employment on the ground of disability and sexual orientation.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. The purpose of this Interim 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. The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

4On July 21, 2011, the Tribunal Registrar sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (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 four respondents named in the Application 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. The applicant filed his submissions on August 29, 2011.

St. Lawrence College

5In section 8, which deals with the facts that support the Application, the applicant’s answer is a mixture of legal/policy propositions taken from various websites, argument with respect to the application of those principles and the duplication of an email apparently sent to St. Lawrence College personnel.

6With respect to the latter, the applicant appears to be setting out allegations relating to being banned from campus, differential treatment by an unnamed instructor on the basis of his mental disability and denial of a student job in the respondent’s recruiting department. There appear to be other issues alluded to, but these are not clearly set out and it is not possible to summarize them.

7In his response to the NOID, the applicant is much clearer, stating that he has been banned from the campus for one year and that as a condition of his return he has to take anti-psychotic medication, which he refuses to do.

8An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A decision to continue to deal with an Application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the Application.

9On the face of the Application and response to the NOID, the applicant appears to allege differential treatment by the respondent on the basis of a disability. Based on the applicant’s submissions, it is not plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application with respect to St. Lawrence College.

10However, prior to the Application being delivered to the respondent, the applicant is required to further particularize his allegations. As noted above, the manner in which the applicant answers section 8 of the Application does not provide sufficient details to allow the respondent to respond to the allegations, or the Tribunal to determine the nature of the allegations of discrimination.

11Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant is to deliver to the Tribunal an amended answer to question 8, which details the facts which support his claim of discrimination against St. Lawrence College. In particular, with respect to each allegation in his Application, the applicant should provide details with respect to:

a. What happened?

b. When did each event alleged happen?

c. Who was involved?

d. On what basis is this allegation a violation of the Code by the respondent?

12A copy of the revised Application, this Interim Decision and the submissions filed by the applicant in response to the NOID will be sent to the respondent, at which point the respondent will be directed to file a full Response to the Application, which could include submissions on the issue of jurisdiction.

Hotel Dieu Hospital, the Kingston Police and the RCMP

13As indicated above, the applicant names four respondents in its Application. In addition to St. Lawrence College, he also names the Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, the Kingston Police and the RCMP. The applicant discusses being treated in the hospital and being apprehended by the police, but he does not allege differential treatment by these organizations.

14The Tribunal does not, therefore, have jurisdiction over these three named organizational respondents and the Application is dismissed as against Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, the Kingston Police and the RCMP. A copy of this Interim Decision and the Application will be delivered to these parties.

15I am not seized of this matter.