HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Jeffrey Johnson
Applicant
-and-
Corporation of the Town of Kearney
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Johnston v. Kearney (Town)
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on December 15, 2011.
2The applicant was sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) by the Registrar on January 31, 2012, which advised that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on the following basis:
a) The Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent;
b) The Application failed to disclose a ground or area of discrimination under the Code.
3The NOID further advised the applicant that he must file submissions responding to the issues identified in the NOID by March 1, 2012, or the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
4On March 6, 2011, the applicant responded to the NOID stating that, “due to a number of circumstances, we did not respond ahead of the deadline…”. He also advised, “One reason for delaying my response to the HRT is that some members of Council are trying to address the wrongs that have and are being committed”.
5The applicant’s submissions in response to the NOID reiterating the allegations contained in the Application. Essentially, the applicant alleges he is subject to reprisal by the respondent contrary to s. 8 of the Code.
ANALYSIS
6Notwithstanding the failure to comply with filing deadlines, I have exercised my discretion and considered the applicant’s submissions.
7The Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390, Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2009 HRTO 1769, and Grant v. Tierney, 2011 HRTO 1207. The Code is not designed to remedy all instances of differential treatment, poor service delivery, professional misconduct, bullying, or interference in one’s public affairs. For the Tribunal to have jurisdiction (power to decided) the alleged treatment has to be linked in a substantive way to a Code ground. See Kostiuk v. Ottawa (City), 2011 HRTO 16, and Villella v. Brampton (City), 2011 HRTO 1085.
8With respect to the allegation of reprisal, section 8 of the Code states:
Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal.
9Even if the applicant was treated differently by the respondent, he provides no explanation as to how the negative treatment he suffered at the hands of the respondent infringed s.8 of the Code. Given that the applicant has not asserted that the conduct at issue was related to a ground under the Code, his attempts to remedy this conduct cannot be said to be either “claiming” or “enforcing” a right under the Code. With respect to the second criteria, the Application was filed after the alleged differential treatment by the respondent. Obviously the alleged negative treatment cannot be attributed to instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code. See, Reid v. Molson Coors Canada, 2011 HRTO 427, and Adams v. Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Cornwall & District, 2012 HRTO 418.
10I therefore find that the applicant has not made out an allegation of reprisal within the meaning of the Code and therefore the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
11An application may 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 and any other submissions that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, Morin v. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58, Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63, and Adams, above.
12Based on the Application and applicant’s submissions, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
ORDER
13The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of March, 2012.
”signed by”_________
Alan G. Smith
Member