HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
James Henkel
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services – Chief Fire Arms Office
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Date: July 16, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 1390
Indexed as: Henkel v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal with respect to services.
2On May 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application as it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction 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.
[the applicant] failed to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to any of the following [criteria required to establish reprisal]: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code.
The NOID directed the applicant to provide submissions by June 6, 2012 as to whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider his Application. The applicant did not provide any submissions.
ANALYSIS
3I have reviewed the Application. It contains a narrative of events related to the applicant’s application for a renewal of a license related to transporting his firearm which the respondent denied on the basis that he was required to make his application through his sportsmen’s association. It is clear that the applicant disagrees that the respondent is entitled to require him to make his application through an association, but the Application makes no allegation that the reason for refusal is related to a ground in the Code.
4The Application does allege reprisal, and, in the section of the Application form about reprisal, the applicant referred to a staff of the respondent who “threatened to force the disagreement to go to a formal hearing thus preventing quiet enjoyment of a legitimate sporting activity in which I am legally entitled to participate.”
5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.
6Having reviewed the Application and the applicant’s submissions, I note that the applicant has not described an act of discrimination related to any ground under the Code. As well, the Application contains no description of reprisal as defined by the Code. Section 8 of the Code provides:
- Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.
7The applicant’s allegation that the “threat” by the respondent to the applicant that he would have to proceed to a formal hearing to get his licence renewed is not a reprisal as defined by the Code.
8I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application is beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
ORDER
9The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16^th^ day of July, 2012.
Signed by
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair