Ajay Hayer v. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Department of Justice (Canada), 2012 HRTO 1310

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ajay Hayer

Applicant

-and-

The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Department of Justice (Canada)

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: July 3, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1310 Indexed as: Hayer v. The Canadian Human Rights Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ajay Hayer, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed on March 20, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment, housing and goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and marital status.

2On May 25, 2012, the Tribunal Registrar sent a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Applicant to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because some of the respondents appeared to be federally regulated and because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent(s). The Tribunal required the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by no later than June 24, 2012.

3On June 21, 2012, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID. The applicant’s submissions do not address whether some of the various entities named in the Application are federally regulated. The applicant also did not identify any specific acts of discrimination allegedly committed by the entities to which he refers in the Application. Instead, the applicant referred to the allegations contained in his Application and correspondence filed to complete his Application.

4An application (or portion thereof) will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

5The applicant indicates that he was born in India, but has spent most of his life in Canada and is a Canadian citizen. He states that he works in information technology, sales and consulting, but has not been able to find work in these fields because of discrimination and racism in hiring. The applicant identifies several organizations in the Application, but only properly completed the Application with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the federal Department of Justice. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is an agency of the federal government and the federal Department of Justice is part of the federal government. Accordingly, it is plain and obvious that both of these organizations are federally regulated and therefore outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6The applicant has apparently been unable to secure employment over the last several years in his chosen field and attributes his lack of success to discrimination. Beyond this bare assertion, however, the applicant did not describe any specific acts of alleged discrimination attributable to any of the entities that he refers to in the Application. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7The Application is dismissed.