Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Ben Weigl
Applicant
-and-
109 Brien Tenants Association
Respondent
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Weigl v. 109 Brien Tenants Association
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ben Weigl, Applicant (Self-represented)
1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on June 13, 2012, alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to housing because of disability. The applicant alleges that a representative of the respondent organization removed his bicycle from a secured post.
2The Application has not yet been served on the respondent.
3On June 29, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) indicating that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application because a review of the Application and narrative appear to fail to identify any acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code and also appear to fail to explain how the respondent’s alleged behaviour constitutes a reprisal or threat of reprisal.
4On July 10, 2012, the applicant filed additional details with respect to his Application and submissions in response to the Notice. The applicant indicates that his disability was known to the respondent organization because he was formerly a member of the respondent organization’s board. The applicant claims that as human rights activist he has circulated human rights educational materials to other tenants and this is one of the reasons he believes he has been subjected to reprisal. The applicant explained that there is a close relationship between the respondent organization and the Windsor Essex Community Housing, against whom he previously filed an application. The applicant alleges that his personal property was meddled with after he attempted to post information to educate his fellow tenants.
5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, prior to delivering it to the responding party, 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.
6I am satisfied that the Application should be served on the respondent and that the respondent should be given an opportunity to address the issues. Based on the Application and the applicant’s submissions, it appears that the applicant’s allegations may raise Code-related concerns regarding alleged differential treatment and reprisal. In the circumstances, it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not raise matters covered by the Code.
7Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. This 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 will forward the Application, the Notice, the applicant’s submissions and this Interim Decision to the respondent. The respondent must file a Response within 35 days of receipt of the materials.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of July, 2012.
”signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair