Scholtes v. York Regional Transit, 2011 HRTO 505

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Erhard Scholtes

Applicant

-and-

York Regional Transit/VIVA and Kamran Keshavarzi

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: March 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 505

Indexed as: Scholtes v. York Regional Transit

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Erhard Scholtes, Applicant ) Self-represented

Background.

1The applicant filed this Application on December 21, 2010, 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 (public transit) on the grounds of race and colour.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondents. The purpose of this 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 (“NOID”). The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

4On January 31, 2011, the Registrar sent a 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 respondents 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.

Decision

5The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on March 1, 2011. The applicant alleges that the personal respondent, “…has clearly been discriminatory toward me, on several occasions, because he simply does not like the way I look”. The applicant goes on to describe some of the characteristics of his personal appearance which the applicant believes have lead to the personal respondent’s discriminatory behaviour.

6The applicant does not identify his race or colour in the Application or submissions. Although he states that he believes the personal respondent discriminated against him on the basis of aspects of his personal appearance (such as body weight, shaved head and beard), the applicant does not connect these characteristics with a ground in the Code, nor identify himself as a member of one of the groups covered by a ground in the Code.

7An application will 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 and any other submissions that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction: Patterson v. MPW Industrial Service, 2010 HRTO 2140.

Order

8Based on the Application and applicant’s submissions, it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Application is therefore dismissed.