HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lawrence Whitney
Applicant
-and-
Superior Court of Justice and Rosemarie Skraban
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Whitney v. Superior Court of Justice
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Lawrence Whitney, Applicant
Self-represented
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 September 14, 2012, alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of citizenship and creed.
2The applicant alleges that the individual respondent, a court registrar, obstructed his court application and required him to attend in person to issue his application for judicial review. The applicant alleges that since his application was registered in Barrie, the respondents should simply have transferred it to Toronto. The applicant alleges that the individual respondent fabricated a policy to block his court application.
3While the applicant claims that he was being discriminated against on the basis of citizenship and creed, the situation described in the applicant’s narrative appears to suggest that the applicant is concerned that the individual respondent did not allow his judicial review application to be transferred.
4As a result, on October 18, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of 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 allegedly committed by the respondents within the meaning of the Code.
5On November 21, 2012, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID. Although the applicant specified in his written submissions the various reasons why he believes he was treated with “malice” by the individual respondent, the applicant did not address the basis upon which he believes the respondents engaged in discrimination related to the Code.
DECISION
6An application will 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. Based on the Application and the applicant’s materials, I am satisfied that that the applicant’s allegations do not raise concerns of discrimination on the basis of Code-protected grounds.
7The applicant alleges that the respondents should have registered his judicial review application without his personal attendance and that the personal respondent used her position to obstruct his case. The applicant expresses concern regarding the individual respondent’s alleged remarks that “[he] was not a lawyer” and “he did not know what he was doing”. The applicant asserts that the personal respondent “attacked his good character” and removed documents from his court materials.
8The applicant clearly feels that he has been treated unfairly with respect to the respondents’ services; however, he does not explain how the alleged mistreatment occurred in relation to a Code-protected ground. While the applicant cites the grounds of citizenship and creed, he did not indicate how these grounds were in any way a factor in any of the alleged differential treatment.
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, race, gender, age, etc.). The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code. The applicant has not identified any incidents or the basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated. I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide.
10Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 4^th^ day of December, 2012.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair