Dixon v. The Brick Warehouse, 2012 HRTO 136

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Greg Dixon

Applicant

-and-

The Brick Warehouse, Melanie Carson and Tanja McLeod

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: January 18, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 136

Indexed as: Dixon v. The Brick Warehouse

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on June 30, 2011, alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability, family status and reprisal.

2On October 25, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because the Application may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The NOID indicated that it appeared that the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination and/or reprisal within the meaning of the Code.

3On November 21, 2011, and December 6, 2011, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID. The applicant specified the reasons why he believes the personal respondents and corporate respondent are responsible for the alleged discrimination and reprisal. Specifically, the applicant alleges that he believes he was harassed and reprised against by the two personal respondents because he “suffers from PSTD” and because he had previously filed a human rights complaint.

DECISION

4An application will only 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. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the application.

5It is noted the while Form 1 of the Application only listed Melanie Carson as the store manager for the corporate respondent, the applicant’s cover document to the Application, Form 1-C, details in Form 1 and his narrative, as well as the accompanying documents and submissions, all list Melanie Carson as a personal respondent. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will consider Melanie Carson to be a personal respondent.

6Without making any findings with respect to the allegations and the propriety of proceeding against any personal respondent, I am satisfied that the Application can now be processed with the supplementary information provided by the applicant. As such, the Application, the NOID and the applicant’s submissions will be delivered to the respondents and the respondents will be given an opportunity to file Responses.

7This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application, nor any indication of the merits of the Application.

Order

8The Tribunal orders as follows:

(i) The Registrar will forward a copy of all materials in the file, together with a Notice of Application, to the respondents; and

(ii) The respondents are required to file their Responses no later than 35 days after the Tribunal sends a copy of this Interim Decision and the accompanying documents.

9I am not seized of this matter.