HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Raymond Moreau
Applicant
-and-
Essex Condominium #22
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Moreau v. Essex Condominium #22
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Raymond Moreau, 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 with respect to housing. Since the Application has not yet been served on the respondent this Decision refers solely to the applicant’s version of events.
2The Application alleges that employees of the respondent in the condominium where the applicant resides have and continue to harass and intimidate the applicant, including calling him names. The applicant states that he does not have money to seek recourse in the civil courts.
3On September 24, 2013, the Tribunal sent to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (the “NOID”) on the basis that the Application was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because the applicant failed to explain when and how he claimed or enforced a right under the Code; instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code; or refused to infringe the right of another person under the Code.
4On September 30, 2013, the applicant forwarded to the Tribunal short submissions in support of his Application. These submissions do not address the issue raised in the NOID.
DECISION
5Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Rule 13.2 further states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the application to the respondent, request submissions from the applicant. Under 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 Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Morin v. Alliance de la fonction publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58; and Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63.
6Having reviewed the Application and the submissions filed by the applicant it is plain and obvious that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Application. There are simply no allegations in support of the applicant’s position that the applicant has been reprised against by the respondent as contemplated by the Code.
7The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of November, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair