Alan Boswell v. Eichler Caldwell Barristers & Solicitors, 2012 HRTO 1187

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alan Boswell

Applicant

-and-

Eichler Caldwell Barristers & Solicitors

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: June 15, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1187

Indexed as: Boswell v. Eichler Caldwell Barristers & Solicitors

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alan Boswell, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin in employment. The respondent is a law firm operating in British Columbia. In his Application, the applicant indicates that the events did not happen in Ontario. He describes events that are alleged to have taken place in Vancouver, British Columbia, and he states that the alleged discrimination “put me out of work, I had to leave the City of Vancouver.”

2On May 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (the “NOID”) indicating that this Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the events described in his Application took place outside of Ontario, and because the Application fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The applicant was given an opportunity to make written submissions in response to the NOID. His submissions basically argue that the Tribunal has jurisdiction because the respondent had taken the position that his previous employer in Vancouver had done “nothing wrong” when the applicant alleges the employer had provided false information to people in Ontario.

3The Code is provincial legislation, providing protection from discrimination for acts committed within Ontario. As stated in Cash v. Stryker Canada, 2009 HRTO 1738:

As a provincial statute, the Code is subject to the constitutional limitation that provinces may not legislate “extra-territorially.” The Constitution Act, 1867, makes it clear that provincial legislative jurisdiction is confined to “property and civil rights in the Province” (s. 92(13)), and “generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province” (s. 92(16)).

4In the Application, the applicant described the incident(s) of discrimination by simply stating, “Refuses to take legal action against corp. rec. [his previous employer] and told BC Law Society corp. rec. did nothing wrong.” Given that both the applicant and the respondent, a law firm practicing in British Columbia, were located outside Ontario at the time the acts were alleged to have been committed by the respondent, and given that the incidents took place outside of Ontario, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, there is no need to review whether the Application fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Application is dismissed.