Stephen v. Podium Toastmasters Club, 2012 HRTO 589

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peterson Stephen

Applicant

• and-

Podium Toastmasters Club, Yan Li, William Denault, and Gordon Wilson

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Decision Date: March 21, 2011 Citation: 2012 HRTO 589 Indexed as: Stephen v. Podium Toastmasters Club

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peterson Stephen, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal in goods, services and facilities. The applicant alleges that he was denied membership in the respondent club, and not permitted to participate as a guest. The applicant states that he suspects that the rejection was because of the fact that the personal respondent, Gordon Wilson, mentor to the new executive, has for many years held a personal animosity and grudge against him.

2On January 12, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss noting that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because (i) it did not allege any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent; and (ii) the applicant had not explained how the respondents’ behaviour was related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, instituting or participating in proceedings in the Code, or refusing to infringe the rights of another person under the Code.

3The applicant filed submissions in response. He states that the matters he raises are matters of public importance and that the respondents’ conduct violates our society’s values. He urges the Tribunal to act against unjustice.

4The Tribunal has only the power to enforce the Code. The Code does not prohibit all discrimination, only that based on the grounds set out in the Code (see s. 1 for the grounds relevant to goods, services and facilities). The Application makes clear that the applicant does not allege discrimination based upon any of these grounds. He states that it is discrimination against him personally. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s allegations of discrimination, which are not based on a prohibited ground.

5The Code does not protect against all reprisals – only reprisals for claiming or enforcing one’s rights under the Code, participating in Code proceedings, or refusing to infringe another person’s Code rights (see s. 8 of the Code). The applicant does not allege that any of these situations apply to him. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s allegations of reprisal.

6Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and the Application is dismissed.