Burke v. Ontario (Finance), 2011 HRTO 749

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wally Burke

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Finance

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: April 18, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 749

Indexed as: Burke v. Ontario (Finance)

1This Application was filed on February 15, 2011 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance.

2On March 21, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) indicating that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction over the Application because it appeared that (1) the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and (2) the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

3On March 30, 2011 and April 14, 2011, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID indicating that the incidents of alleged discrimination occurred up to December 2010 and January 2011 and that his concerns relate to on-going alleged harassment by the respondent.

DECISION

4An 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 raise Code-protected grounds or raise concerns with respect to reprisal.

5The applicant alleges unfair treatment and harassment with respect to how the respondent, and in particular his caseworker, have handled his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) payments. Specifically, the applicant alleges that his caseworker has made frequent and repeated requests for medical documents, materials and updates regarding his Canada Pension Plan benefits, wrongly placed his ODSP payments on hold, wrongly sought re-payment, and erroneously determined that he has assets. The applicant alleges that his caseworker is “incompetent” and that the caseworker has failed to appreciate the reality of his circumstances.

6While the applicant clearly feels that he has been treated unfairly in with respect to receipt of his ODSP payments, 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.

7The 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, race, gender, 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 incidents or the basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated. I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the issue of delay.

8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.