Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Maria Rots Applicant
-and-
Toronto City Police 11 Division Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 15, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1945 Indexed as: Rots v. Toronto City Police 11 Division
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Maria Rots, Applicant Self-represented
Decision
1The applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), on May 18, 2012 alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of services, goods and facilities on the basis of race, colour, family status, marital status and receipt of public assistance.
2The applicant alleges that the police have falsely charged her with public mischief. The applicant also makes a variety of allegations about her ex-boyfriend and his possible involvement in the charges.
3On July 18, 2012, and again on August 31, 2012, the Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") indicating that the Tribunal was considering whether or not it had jurisdiction over the Application because it appeared that the Application failed to identify any specifics acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The applicant was directed to file written submissions explaining why she believed the Application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
4The applicant filed submissions on September 19, 2012. The applicant maintains that the police falsely arrested her for things she is not guilty of doing. The applicant notes that poor people are more likely to go to jail than a rich person and refers to documentation reporting on the treatment of poor people in the justice system.
DECISION
5The applicant's submissions and supporting documentation suggest that the applicant is concerned that, as a low income person, she was unfairly targeted by the police. It appears that the applicant perceives that because she is in receipt of public assistance she was subjected to disadvantageous treatment by the police and believes this is an example of discrimination that should be covered by the Code.
6The applicant's submissions do not specifically address any other Code-grounds, nor explain the basis upon which she believes she experienced discrimination or reprisal by the police in connection to her race, colour, family status or marital status.
7While the applicant clearly feels that she has been falsely accused and convicted, the applicant has not explained how the alleged false charges and prosecution were connected to or indirectly occurred in relation to a Code ground.
8The ground of "receipt of public assistance", which appear to underlie the applicant's submissions that poor people are disproportionately jailed compared to rich people, only applies to circumstances related to housing under section 2 of the Code.
9The Tribunal's jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, gender and age, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds and areas listed in the Code.
10Other than her statement about being poor, the applicant's written submissions fail to explain how the respondent police are alleged to have breached her rights on the basis of a Code ground. While the applicant's concerns regarding the treatment of low-income people in the justice system may raise important social policy issues, the "receipt of public assistance" provisions of the Code do not apply to the circumstances alleged by the applicant. As such, in my view, it is plain and obvious on the face of this Application that the allegations do not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
11I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15^th^ day of October, 2012.
"signed by"
__________________________________ Ena Chadha Vice-chair