HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lawrence Whitney
Applicant
-and-
Ministry of the Attorney General Communication Branch and Judy Phillips
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Whitney v. Ministry of the Attorney General Communication Branch
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 with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of citizenship.
2The applicant alleges that on July 19, 2012, the individual respondent wrote a letter to him removing the respondent Attorney General’s jurisdiction allowing him, as “a private person (Citizenship) of Ontario”, from registering criminal charges against the police and employees of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.
3While the applicant claims that he was being discriminated against on the basis of citizenship, the situation described in the applicant’s narrative appears to suggest that the applicant is upset that the individual respondent wrote to him, in response to his correspondence, advising that the respondent Attorney General does not have jurisdiction over the investigation and laying of criminal charges.
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”, 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 a Code-protected ground.
7The applicant takes issue with the individual respondent’s correspondence advising him that police functions and services are independent of the Attorney General. The applicant alleges that the respondents should have registered his criminal charges against the police allegedly knowing that the police do not lay charges against their own.
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 references his citizenship as an Ontarian, he did not indicate how this was in any way a factor in any 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 4th day of December, 2012.
“signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair