HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mark Dorfman
Applicant
-and-
Corporation of the City of Waterloo
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: March 28, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 638 Indexed as: Dorfman v. Waterloo (City)
1The applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on January 12, 2012 alleging discrimination in the area of services, goods and facilities. The applicant indicates that the Application is made on behalf of Blaze Properties Inc. (“Blaze Properties”).
2The Application appears to impugn the decision making process and services provided by the respondent City with respect to By-law 2011-047 that pertains to rental housing licensing. The applicant alleges that Blaze Properties owns and operates a class of rental housing units (low density rental housing) that the respondent City does not treat the same as apartment dwellings in regards to the City’s licensing exemptions and costs. In response to Question 5 of Form 1 of the Application, the applicant did not specify a Code ground because “this is a novel complaint”.
3On February 17, 2012, the Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) indicating that the Tribunal was considering whether or not it had jurisdiction over the Application because it appeared that the Application failed to identify any specifics acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code and/or the Application did not allege any rights of the applicant have been infringed and the Application is not made on behalf of another person pursuant to section 34(5) of the Code. The applicant was given 30 days to file written submissions explaining why he believed the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
4The applicant filed submissions on March 13, 2012. The applicant indicates that he appreciates that this is a novel complaint of alleged discrimination and that the Application “does not fall within the eighteen grounds of discrimination” cited in the Code. The applicant submits that the Tribunal should nevertheless accept jurisdiction over the Application because the respondent's By-law applies an unfair licensing regime to low density rental housing which clearly has an adverse impact on Blaze Properties’ townhouses and its tenants by imposing unnecessary and higher licensing costs than that incurred by other types of housing units, such as apartments. The applicant perceives this to be a public interest issue and a clear example of discrimination that should be covered by the Code.
DECISION
5The materials filed with the Application and the applicant’s submissions indicate that the applicant is concerned that the respondent City’s licensing structure differentiates between the type of dwelling unit. The applicant argues that the respondent City is discriminating in requiring that low rise residential properties of the type owned and operated by Blaze Properties be subject to certain licensing conditions.
6While the applicant clearly feels that the respondent’s By-law has a disadvantageous impact on the low density rental properties, the Application did not specify any alleged grounds of discrimination that are claimed to have been violated by the respondent. The applicant does not explain how the alleged inequality and unfairness in the licensing regime is directly connected to or indirectly occurred in relation to a Code ground.
7An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Morin c. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58; and Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63. In my view, it is plain and obvious on the face of this Application that the allegations do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the applicant’s written submissions fail to adequately explain how the respondent is alleged to have breached the applicant’s rights on the basis of a Code ground.
8The 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, disability, gender and 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 ground of discrimination and protected basis upon which he alleges that the Code was violated.
9I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of March, 2012.
”signed by”____________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair