Christopher Liu v. Bay of Quinte Men’s Soccer League, 2013 HRTO 44

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Liu

Applicant

-and-

Bay of Quinte Men’s Soccer League and Ike Christopher

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: January 10, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 44

Indexed as: Liu v. Bay of Quinte Men’s Soccer League

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christopher Liu, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on November 1, 2012 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The application alleges discrimination with respect to services on the basis of reprisal or the threat of reprisal. The Application alleges that in the period August 2007 to September 2012 the respondents inappropriately subjected the applicant to repeated discipline, harassment and differential treatment which included preventing the applicant from playing soccer in the Bay of Quinte Men’s Soccer League, verbally harassing the applicant and fining the applicant for alleged misconduct.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondents. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to a respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) to the applicant.

3The Tribunal sent a NOID dated December 3, 2012 to the applicant. The NOID states that it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the applicant has alleged discrimination based on reprisal or the threat of reprisal but has failed to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was related to any of the following:

• claiming or enforcing a right under the Code;
• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code or
• refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code.

4The applicant was directed to provide written submissions in response to the issues raised in the NOID. The applicant filed his submissions on December 10, 2012.

5The applicant submits that the respondents “illegally” took action against him including illegally suspending him from play and illegally fining him. The applicant submits that the respondents repeatedly took actions to prevent his playing soccer in the Bay of Quinte Men’s Soccer League. The applicant submits he unsuccessfully tried to challenge the respondents’ actions by, amongst other things, filing complaints with the Ontario Soccer Association (OSA).

6The applicant also raised a new allegation in his submissions in response to the NOID. He submits that he was eventually advised by the OSA that he could file an Application with this Tribunal. He submits that he accepted this advice and on November 1, 2012 filed his Application. He submits that on November 8, 2012 the respondents contacted his employer requesting that his employer remove the applicant from the employer’s own soccer program. The applicant submits that this was in retaliation for exercising his rights including his right to file an application.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

7The Application makes no claim that the respondents subjected the applicant to discriminatory treatment because of a Code related ground (for example, age, disability or place of origin). The Application only alleges that the respondents subjected the applicant to “reprisal” during the period August 2007 to September 2012.

8Section 8 of the Code sets out what constitutes reprisal under the Code:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing

In Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 the Tribunal stated “Reprisal under s. 8 of the Code must be a reprisal for the assertion of human rights and there must be an intention to reprise for that reason”.

9It is clear that the Application identifies a number of the respondents’ actions which were, in the applicant’s opinion unwarranted or unfair. Some of these actions are described as illegal or contrary to OSA requirements or directives. The Application also appears to suggest that some of the respondents’ actions are in retaliation for the applicant repeatedly challenging the respondents’ decisions and actively pursuing his interest in being allowed to play soccer in the Bay of Quinte Men’s Soccer League. However, the Application does not allege that any of the respondents’ actions were related to a Code ground or were in reprisal for the applicant asserting that his human rights had been violated. While the applicant clearly alleges that he was mistreated, the Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code.

10An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. Having considered the information contained in the Application and the applicant’s further submissions I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and it is accordingly dismissed.

11In his submissions in response to the NOID the applicant did make the further allegation that the respondents retaliated against him after he filed his Application on November 1, 2012. He alleges that the respondents subsequently approached his employer on November 8, 2012 in an effort to have the applicant removed from sports programs offered by his employer. This is not an allegation that is contained in the original Application. I have therefore not considered this new allegation as a part of this Decision as it is an allegation that relates to an event that takes place after the filing of the Application. Given that I am dismissing the entire Application as being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, in the circumstances of this case, if the applicant wishes to pursue this new allegation it is open to him to file a further Application and this Decision is not a final decision with respect to whether this new allegation is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.