Rybczynski v. Mulcaster Mews, 2013 HRTO 1813

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Joseph Rybczynski Applicant

-and-

Mulcaster Mews Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 28, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1813 Indexed as: Rybczynski v. Mulcaster Mews

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joseph Rybczynski, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application was filed on August 30, 2013 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, goods and facilities because of ancestry, gender identity, gender expression, family status and reprisal.

2The Application relates to the applicant's concerns about restrictions placed on him by the respondent facility (at the behest of his siblings) when he attends to see his father, a resident of the facility. The applicant notes that the last alleged discriminatory event occurred on July 26, 2012.

3On September 16, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") indicating that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction over the Application because it appears that (1) the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and (2) 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. The NOID directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the jurisdictional issues.

4On October 16, 2013, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID. A major portion of the submissions are convoluted and incomprehensible. It appears the applicant is alleging that the incidents of alleged discrimination involved bullying, bad faith, and corruption by his siblings and the respondent facility. It also appears the applicant submitted his Application electronically on July 27, 2013 using a computer at his local library, but that a confirmation was not received. As a result, the applicant resubmitted a copy of the Application by fax on August 30, 2013.

DECISION

5An application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on respondents, if it is "plain and obvious" on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Based on the content of the Application and the applicant's submissions, I am satisfied that the applicant's allegations do not raise Code-protected grounds or raise concerns with respect to Code-related reprisal.

6Based on an interpretation of the applicant's submissions at the highest possible conception of his concerns and legal position, it appears the applicant alleges unfair treatment and harassment with respect to the restrictions placed on him when he attends at the respondent facility. The Application describes the circumstances as arising out of "family dynamics". The applicant disputes his siblings' "Power of Authority" regarding his father's affairs and believes his father is a victim of "parental abuse" by his siblings. The applicant contests his siblings' authority and alleges that the administrators of the respondent facility should not enforce restrictions on him which were imposed by his siblings.

7I find that the Application fails to identify matters and discrimination allegedly committed by the respondent which the Tribunal has the power to decide. The applicant expressly states that his concerns of unfair treatment arise out "family dynamics" and conflict with his siblings. While there is no doubt that the applicant feels that it is unfair of the respondent to enforce restrictions being set by his siblings, he does not explain how this occurred in relation to a Code-protected ground or because of an attempt on his part to claim and enforce his Code rights. I appreciate that the applicant believes that he is being treated unfairly, but he does not claim that the respondent's actions were because of a Code ground or as Code reprisal, but rather recognizes the alleged behaviour as arising out his disagreement with his siblings.

8The applicant characterizes his concern as his opposition to his siblings' purportedly power of authority. This is not a matter within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The 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, race, gender and age, etc.) carried out by or in relation to the respondent parties named in the Application. 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 incidents and basis upon which he alleges that the respondent facility violated the Code.

9Although I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide and that it is not entirely necessary for me to consider the issue of delay, it is noteworthy that the applicant acknowledges that the Application was filed outside of the Code's one-year timeline. The applicant explains the delay occurred as a result of the library's computer system not sending the Application on July 27, 2013 and, therefore, he resubmitted the Application on August 30, 2013. I highlight that the July 27, 2013 date is also out of time and the applicant has provided no explanation for the gap between July 27, 2013 to August 30, 2013. It appears that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and the applicant has failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

10Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.