Sandra Baksh v. The St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, Beauties of Canada and Denis Davila, 2013 HRTO 338

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sandra Baksh

Applicant

-and-

The St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts,

Beauties of Canada and Denis Davila

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: February 27, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 338

Indexed as: Baksh v. St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sandra Baksh, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed this Application on October 25, 2012, under section 34 of the Ontario 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 race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and disability. The applicant alleges that she was mistreated by the respondents and ejected from the premises of the St. Lawrence Centre.

2On January 11, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) on the basis that that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application and narrative failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

3The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on February 3, 2013 stating that she believed she, and the other individuals accompanying her, were not allowed to attend the theatre function despite having tickets because of their colour. The applicant alleges that the respondent organization accused her of causing a disturbance and called the police because she and her group are of “minority” background and “coloured”.

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage before it is delivered to a respondent if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the application.

5It appears that the applicant believes that she and her guests were denied services and entry into a facility because of their ethnicity.

6I find that it is not plain and obvious the alleged grounds and acts of discrimination do not come within the meaning of the Code.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The Application, the NOID and the applicant’s submissions and the accompanying documentation will be delivered to the respondents.

DIRECTIONS

8The Tribunal directs as follows:

i. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application;

ii. Along with this Interim Decision, the Tribunal will deliver a Notice of Application, a copy of the NOID and the applicant’s correspondence to the respondents;

iii. The respondents are required to file their Responses (Form 2) to the Application no later than 35 days after the Tribunal sends a copy of this Interim Decision and the accompanying documents. In the Responses, the respondents are directed to indicate whether or not they are willing to participate in mediation; and

iv. The Tribunal may issue further directions with respect to any issues and/or may schedule future steps accordingly.

9I am not seized.