HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Carol Gibson
Applicant
-and-
Sheridan College, Oakville Campus
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Gibson v. Sheridan College
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 12, 2010.
2The Application cites numerous grounds in various social areas. The Application narrative simply indicates that the applicant has experienced harassment and is having housing and employment problems.
3On December 10, 2010, the Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis the Application failed to identify any specifics acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The applicant was given 30 days to file written submissions explaining why she believed the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
4The applicant filed submissions on December 22, 2010. In her submissions, the applicant asserts that teachers and students at the respondent institution have harassed and discriminated against her. The applicant indicates that the mistreatment consisted of lessons and statements that “did not make sense”. The applicant perceived that she was being “picked on” by the use of certain terms, such as “Menasco”, in classroom assignments.
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.). The 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 basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated.
6I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 6^th^ day of January, 2011.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair