Edward Marzec v. Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, 2013 HRTO 1079

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Edward Marzec Applicant

-and-

Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: June 18, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1079 Indexed as: Marzec v. Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination because of disability and reprisal with respect to services.

2On May 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") the Application as it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because:

• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

ANALYSIS

3An application will only 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 that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. See, for example Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.

4I have reviewed the Application and the applicant's submissions in response to the NOID. They contain a narrative of perceived unfairness in the applicant's dealings with various institutions with which he appears to have been forced to engage over the years. It appears that the respondent is an institution where the applicant was detained after an altercation with his neighbour. The applicant alleges that at least one of the doctors connected with the respondent has lied about his mental state, causing his life to be ruined. He also believes that he has been refused certain services by the doctors. However, the Application describes nothing to show that the reason the doctors allegedly lied about him or refused him services is because he has a disability.

5The Application alleges reprisal. Section 8 of the Code provides:

8. 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 for so doing.

6The applicant left blank the section of the Application form with questions about reprisal, and there is nothing describing what might be construed as reprisal in the narrative attached to the Application, or in his reply submissions to the NOID.

7Given that there is no description of any incident connecting the respondent's service to the applicant with discrimination because of disability or with reprisal as defined by the Code, I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

ORDER

8The Application is dismissed.