Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
C.A. as represented by their litigation guardian, M.A. Applicant
-and-
Toronto Catholic District School Board, Frank Galle and Sergio Matulic Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 10, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1713 Indexed as: C.A. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
C.A. as represented by their litigation guardian, M.A., Applicant Self-represented
Introduction
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 discrimination with respect to services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and sex.
2The Application has been filed by a parent on behalf of their child who was enrolled in one of the institutional respondent's elementary schools. Both parent and child have been identified by their initials in order to protect the identity of the child as is the Tribunal's practice pursuant to Rule 3.11.1 of its Rules of Procedure.
3The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondents.
4On September 5, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") to the applicant. The NOID indicates that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents. The NOID directs the applicant to provide written submissions by October 4, 2013.
5The applicant provided submissions in response to the NOID on October 3, 2013. The applicant identifies four incidents of alleged discrimination including one in which one of the personal respondents allegedly made an overt discriminatory comment.
6Under the Tribunal's jurisprudence, an Application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the Application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
7Based on my review of the information before me it is not plain and obvious that this Application falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Application along with the applicant's October 3, 2013 submissions will be delivered to the respondents in order for them to file a Response.
8I am not seized of this matter
Dated at Toronto, this 10^th^ day of October, 2013.
"signed by"
__________________________________
Eric Whist Vice-chair