Fetwi v. Toronto Police Service, 2013 HRTO 2085

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sulleman Fetwi

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service, Christopher Hawley and Nigel Thomas

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: December 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2085

Indexed as: Fetwi v. Toronto Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sulleman Fetwi, Applicant

Self-represented

1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application on the basis that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2The Application was 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 receipt of public assistance. In particular, the applicant alleges that he was subjected to discrimination in an incident involving four police officers who attended at his apartment. The applicant states that the police officers knocked “very hard” on the door to his apartment and told him to open his door. The applicant states he was sleeping at the time because he was sick and this scared him causing him to fall out of his bed hurting his right shoulder. Once inside, the police asked the applicant some questions (does he hear someone banging or yelling), searched his closet and his balcony and then said they were sorry and left stating that they would go to the ninth floor. The applicant states that he found out from the security guard that someone had been throwing things from the ninth floor. The applicant alleges that the police violated his right to safety in his home causing him injury.

3On October 29, 2013, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. This Notice informed the applicant that it appears that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because 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 respondents. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions responding to the issue.

4On November 4, 2013, the applicant filed submissions. In his submissions, the applicant reiterates his concerns about the police failing to identify the right unit, coming into his home without a warrant and searching his home which led to his injury. The applicant alleges that the search of his home “means the police harass me” but he does not elaborate on what basis. The applicant states that he needs help and a lawyer “from (HRTO)” to handle his case.

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, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application. The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires him or her to file written submissions. 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.

6Section 1 of the Code provides:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.

7In essence, the applicant is complaining about the conduct of the police which arguably falls within the social area of services. However, the applicant alleges discrimination in services on the basis of receipt of public assistance by checking off the box on the Application that references this ground. This ground, receipt of public assistance, is not a prohibited ground of discrimination in the social area of services. Indeed, in the application form the ground of “receipt of public assistance” is specifically noted as applying only to claims about housing. The applicant has not made any allegations about the provision of housing and the respondents are not his housing provider.

8The applicant has not explained how the respondents discriminated against him in a manner which is prohibited by the Code. The applicant has alleged that the police harassed him but has not linked that harassment to any ground that may be applicable in the social area complained about – services - under the Code.

9As a result, it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

10The Application is dismissed.