McLennon v. Toronto Port Authority, 2013 HRTO 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Desmond McLennon

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Port Authority and Antonella Tarantino

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 5, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2017

Indexed as: McLennon v. Toronto Port Authority

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Desmond McLennon, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Port Authority and Antonella Tarantino, Respondents

Gerald J. Griffiths, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him and reprised against him and other taxi drivers by prohibiting them access to the Passenger Transfer Facility of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. In addition to filing an Application with the Tribunal, the applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Comission (“CHRC” or “Commission”) raising identical factual allegations to those raised in his Application.

2The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the Application fell within federal jurisdiction. After a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1437, deferring the Application. In my Interim Decision, I set out the terms of the deferral as follows:

In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with this Application. It appears that the CHRC has accepted jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaint. At the very least, the CHRC has not refused jurisdiciton based on federal/provincial grounds as it is proceeding with a review of whether the complaint is linked to a protected ground of discrimination.

If, contrary to appearances, the CHRC were to deny jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaint on federal/provincial grounds, the applicant may request to reactivate his complaint before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which outline the procedure by which a deferred application may be reactivated. In particular, the parties should noet that a request to reactivate an application must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

CHRC Decision

3The CHRC took jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act (“CHRA”). The Commission prepared a report into the complaint. The report concluded that the respondents’ conduct was not discriminatory under the CHRA because the respondents’ Passenger Transfer Facility was not customarily available to the general public. The report also found that the applicant had not set out a basis for a reasonable belief that the respondents had treated him in an adverse differential manner on the basis of a protected ground. Finally, the report concluded that the applicant’s allegations were bald assertions and that there was no practical remedy available to him under the CHRA. Based on these reasons, the report concluded that pursuing the complaint would trivialize the purposes of the CHRA. The CHRC provided the parties with the opportunity to make submissions in response to the report.

4By decision dated September 11, 2013, the CHRC adopted the conclusions in the report. It dismissed the complaint under s. 41(1)(d) of the CHRA as being “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.”

Request to Re-activate

5On November 6, 2013, the applicant filed a request to re-activate his deferred Application. The applicant claimed that the CHRC was in a conflict of interest position and biased. He claimed that the Commission ignored the values underlying the CHRC and the Tribunal to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination.

6The respondents opposed the request to re-activate on the basis that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction and the CHRC decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

Analysis

7Under the terms of the deferral decision, the applicant was permitted to request a re-activation of his Application if the CHRC failed to take jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaint on federal/provincial grounds. The CHRC did take jurisdiction over the applicant’s complaint and issued a decision with respect to his complaint. While I understand that the applicant does not agree with the CHRC’s determination, the CHRC did accept the complaint as falling within federal jurisdiction.

8As a result, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Application. The Application falls under federal jurisdiction and has been dealt with by the CHRC. As with other human rights complaints that fall under federal jurisdiction, if the applicant does not agree with the CHRC’s decision the appropriate recourse is to seek judicial review in Federal Court.

Order

9For the reasons set out above, the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. His request to re-activate his Application is denied. The Application is dismissed.