Julia Szabo v. Office of a Member of Parliament of Canada, 2011 HRTO 2201

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julia Szabo

Applicant

-and-

Office of a Member of Parliament of Canada

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: December 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2201

Indexed as: Szabo v. Office of a Member of Parliament of Canada

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on May 31, 2011 alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the grounds of place of origin and ethnic origin against a respondent organization identified in her application as, “Member of Parliament of CA” [Canada]. It is somewhat unclear from the Application whether the applicant intended to name the Office of a Member of Parliament as the respondent, or a specific Member of Parliament, Gerard Kennedy, who is named in the application as a contact person for the Office. In either case, my decision below would be the same.

2The applicant alleges that she sent correspondence to the respondent’s office in which she outlined a number of concerns and attended the respondent’s office several times. She alleges that the issue remains outstanding and neither the respondent nor his office replied to her concerns. I note that the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness in the provision of services. The Tribunal can only determine whether there has been discrimination on a ground specified in the Code. It is, however, unnecessary for the purposes of this decision to determine whether the general allegations of unfairness made in this application might have related to any Code protected ground.

3A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) dated October 12, 2011 was sent to the applicant by the Tribunal. In the NOID, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the respondent appeared to be “a federal government department, agency or federally related business of service”. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions addressing this issue.

4The applicant responded to the NOID by letter dated November 9, 2011. She submits that she would like to proceed with the case, but does not address the issue of the Application being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

5While the respondent was not a Member of Parliament of Canada on the date of the Application, the allegations appear to relate to issues that the applicant raised with the respondent or his office while he was a Member of Parliament.

6The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. The Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and accordingly it is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.