HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
B E T W E E N:
Riaz Fancy
Applicant
-and-
Ballymartin Contracting and George Grapham
Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Fancy v. Ballymartin Contracting
______________________________________________________________________
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Riaz Fancy, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In the narrative of the Application, the applicant complains about a basement renovation and the failure of the respondent contracting company to leave sufficient space between the wall and the sewer to install the toilet in the bathroom. The individual respondent spoke to the applicant about the problem. During that conversation, the applicant told his wife to let him do the talking. The applicant alleges that in response to this comment, the individual respondent said “I’m outta here. You bastard, don’t you dare talk to your wife like that” and went on to say “You son of a bitch, you will not talk to your wife like that”.
3In the Application, the applicant makes no attempt to link the treatment he received with the grounds of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin or disability. The applicant provided no explanation as to why he believed he was discriminated against on the basis of these grounds. He stated he believed he was discriminated against because of disability or perceived disability because “we are a disabled couple and not in shape physically or financially to re-do whatever is required to rectify the problem”.
4On October 1, 2013, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on the basis that the allegations in the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide) on the following basis:
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(s).
5The applicant filed written submissions in response to the NOID on October 25, 2013, in which he argues that he was referred to as a “bastard and a son of a bitch” by the individual respondent and that “if that is not racial discrimination, then what is?”.
6In the Application, the applicant states he complained to the City Inspector about the problem. This comment highlights the real nature of the applicant’s case – that he feels he received substandard, as opposed to discriminatory, service at the hands of the respondents.
7Rule 13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures permits the Tribunal to dismiss an application at a preliminary stage if it is plain and obvious that the application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate general claims of unfairness or poor customer service. There must be a nexus between the allegation of unfairness/poor service and a ground under the Code. In the absence of such a nexus, the Tribunal cannot hear the application.
8The alleged comments relied upon by the applicant are not by themselves allegations of discrimination because they are not insults or slurs related to a Code ground. Given that the applicant has failed to make allegations that are related to a ground under the Code, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of December, 2013.
“Signed by”
________________________________
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair