HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Romeo King
Applicant
-and-
The City of Mississauga and Irving Wolkowicz
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: King v. Mississauga (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Romeo King, Applicant
Self-represented
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 discrimination with respect to housing because of race and disability.
Background
2The Application alleges that he unknowingly bought a house, approximately 20 years ago, under which high voltage underground cables exist. The Application states 1) that the corporate respondent had a duty to protect the applicant and his family from “fraudulent characters” according to “the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and 2) that the personal respondent is the “crooked lawyer” who was responsible for putting him in his home which places him and his family in danger every time there is an electrical storm. He also states that the corporate respondent is harassing him to carry out hydro repairs when, he claims, the repairs are the corporate respondent’s responsibility.
3In response to the direction to explain why he believes he was discriminated against because of his race, the applicant, who self identifies as a black man and a Canadian, indicated in the Application, “Because we were placed in this house by my crooked lawyer and builder.”
4In response to the direction to explain why he believes he was discriminated against because of his disability, the applicant indicated in the Application, “My disability is easily detected by talking to me.”
Notice of Intent to Dismiss
5On September 14, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (the “Notice”) because it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It states:
- A review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination with the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.
6The Notice invited the applicant to provide submissions in reply.
Further submissions from the applicant
7On September 25, 2012, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant dated September 12, 2012. It states:
In 2009 noise wall fell and the city wants me to replace the wall. They give me a letter to my insurance company to get things going, then reminded me that Hydro had an easement on the property.
Now I have to go back to when I filed a complaint with the HRTO, File #2009-2398-I in 2009. My name is Romeo King and my wife Olga, both seniors.
We explained that on 16 December 88 we bought the property 3236 Latvia Court from Braidword [?] Homes. Irving Wolkowicz was our lawyer. It took him almost a year for him to come up with some mediocre papers of ownership.
I was at home convalescing due to a motor vehicle accident, when Hydro came calling on May 31, 1999 in the form of Robert Koskocky who turned our lives miserable. This was torture.
We call Mr. Wolkowicz by phone, to let him know what was going on, and what we must do. Irving told me he would have to check the basement.
Can you imagine the trauma, and the long wait for Mr. Wolkowicz what's after a week of checking with his [?] secretary, we realized the unscrupulous Mr. Wolkowicz took flight. We kept telling ourselves that things like this don't happen in Canada. The next time we heard from him is through the HRTO in 2009.
On 6th June 99 we send all the material left at my front door, to the Law Society of Upper Canada (at the same time carrying out Koskocky instructions) for some help, then at last what seems like a thousand years on the telephone were the manager of Advisory & Compliance and told us that the laws that he threw at us is for life so stay out of his way or they can throw you in prison. We don't think life was the same after that. We lost our life savings and dream home through Wolkowicz.
After looking at all of those diagrams of underground cables, we are afraid to let our grandchildren play in it, the only time I go to the back is to mow the lawns. How it worked out is that Hydro owns the prime lawns from the streets the entire length of the property and along the two sides. Approx. 50 feet from the back door is an electric [?] where power from 3-4 districts are joined there. Now what City Hall wants us to do is pay the taxes for the land that we do not own and carry out Hydro repair of walls. We keep the gate closed to prevent jumpers and schoolchildren from running into the railway tracks.
The Govt Minister and most of the lawyers that we spoke are saying that they couldn’t see how HRTO, and the great team of lawyers missed such an important point that it is underground cables and not overhead and the city were harassing us when Hydro specifically mention and marked what laws I have to follow on the easement of which had me edorse [?] by the Law Society.
25th March 2010 when I finally got through to the judge, she told me she cannot hear my case unless I change it to housing and it would be against the City of Mississauga and Irving Wolkowicz. Every one that I spoke to is saying Irving is the culprit. Mr. Wolkowicz and the city of Mississauga violated our civil rights and human rights by giving us no choice. They just threw us in the heart of Hydro Station number 25. We are afraid that what is emitting from the cables through the earth is harmful. It can give us cancer. We can be destroyed through an electric storm or hurt badly during the melt after a snowstorm lot of water is accumulate on the lawns if allowed to settle can cause last to spread. We are so afraid that we had to ask the help of Gov. Gen. of Canada
8On September 26, 2012, the Tribunal received another letter from the applicant which states that he is complaining about the corporate respondent because its laws “did not protect us from being cheated by the builder and lawyer that represent us when we use our life savings to purchase our home.”
Analysis
9File #2009-2398-I, to which the applicant’s submissions refer, involved an application filed by the applicant against Enersource Hydro Mississauga Inc., Milac Holdings Limited, Irving Wolkowicz and Nando Iannicca. Iannicca was the applicant’s councillor from the City of Mississauga at the time, and the allegations against the councillor and Mr. Wolkowicz, the personal respondent named in this Application, were dismissed after a teleconference hearing on March 25, 2010. (See King v. Enersource Hydro Mississauga, 2010 HRTO 699). That application, as it pertained to Mr. Wolkowicz, made the same allegations against him as made in this Application, and the Tribunal dismissed them because they were out of time. I note that nowhere in that decision does the Vice-chair hearing that matter make any suggestion that she cannot hear the applicant’s case unless he changes it to housing and that it should be against the City of Mississauga and Irving Wolkowicz. I note that filing an application against the same respondent for the same reasons as used in a previous application may result in a finding of abuse of process against the applicant. However, I confine these reasons for dismissal to the issue raised in the Notice.
10An 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.
11I have reviewed the Application and the applicant’s submissions. They contain a narrative of events related to the applicant’s discovery that the house he bought is built over electrical cables and that Hydro has various easements over his property for which he believes he is responsible to keep in a state of good repair and for which he believes his taxes are unfairly high. It is clear that the applicant believes that the corporate respondent has not acted responsibly in protecting him, and that the personal respondent’s dealings were fraudulent, but the Application makes no understandable allegation that the reason for the alleged unfair treatment is related to a ground in the Code.
12I find that the applicant has not described an act of discrimination related to any ground under the Code. I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application is beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Order
13The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of October, 2012.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair