HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Dean Akouros
Applicant
-and-
Petro Canada Inc.
Respondent
interim DECISION
Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin
Indexed as: Akouros v. Petro Canada
1This is an Application filed on November 5, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c, H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in services based on disability and reprisal.
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 (“NOID”). The NOID is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.
4On December 6, 2010, the Tribunal Registrar sent a NOID to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions responding to the issue identified within 30 days of the date of the NOID.
5The applicant filed submissions on December 21, 2010, specifying in greater detail the alleged acts of discrimination. The applicant alleges that staff of the respondent discriminated against him based on disability by verbally ridiculing him because of what he describes as a facial disfigurement. Further, the applicant appears to be alleging reprisal. The applicant states that after he complained about the discrimination by staff to the respondent, staff refused to serve him and made false accusations about him.
6An 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. 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 therefore continue to process the Application.
7A decision to continue to deal with an Application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the Application.
8A copy of the Application, the NOID and the submissions filed by the applicant in response to the NOID, and this Interim Decision will be sent to the respondent. The respondent is directed to file a Response to the Application in accordance with the Rules.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of January, 2011.
”signed by”____________
Kathleen Martin
Vice-chair