Cornelius Von Blyderveen v. Preferred Credit Resource Limited, 2011 HRTO 392

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cornelius Von Blyderveen

Applicant

-and-

Preferred Credit Resource Limited

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: February 22, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 392

Indexed as: Blyderveen v. Preferred Credit Resource

BACKGROUND

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 December 9, 2010 alleging reprisal with respect to services, goods and facilities and contracts.

2On January 18, 2011 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The applicant was advised to complete the Application and return it to the Tribunal no later than February 7, 2011. The applicant was further advised that, based on a review of the Application and narrative, the Application does not allege a ground of discrimination under the Code and therefore does not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve. Specifically, the applicant’s narrative failed to identify a Code-protected ground and any specific acts of discrimination or reprisal within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent in relation a Code-protected ground.

3The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions no later than February 7, 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 completed the Application and submitted the documents on February 7, 2011; however, the applicant did not file submissions with respect to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the timeline for providing written submissions has elapsed.

DECISION

5An application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on respondents, 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 materials, I am satisfied that that the applicant’s allegations do not relate to a Code-protected ground and do not raise concerns with respect to reprisal.

6The Application is made in relation to the applicant’s credit card debt. The applicant alleges that he believes he has been subjected to discrimination because the respondent collection agency has selected to pursue him because he has “some assets from which to recover debt”. The applicant alleges that this is not equal treatment of all customers of the credit card company. The applicant alleges that the reprisal arises because the respondent perceives he has assets and has threatened to seize property.

7While the applicant clearly feels that he has been treated unfairly by the respondent, he does not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to a Code-protected ground or because of an attempt on his part to claim and enforce his Code rights.

8The 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.”

9The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any ground of discrimination or basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated.

10I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.