Harrison v. Toronto Community Housing, 2013 HRTO 50

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stacey Harrison

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing, Loblaws Companies Ltd., Local 1000A Loblaws and Gary Brown

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: January 10, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 50

Indexed as: Harrison v. Toronto Community Housing

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stacey Harrison, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application 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 housing because of sex, sexual solicitation or advance, family status and marital status. The applicant alleges that she was evicted from a unit with the respondent, Toronto Community Housing (“TCH”), on January 20, 2012, for payment issues.

2While the applicant alleged discrimination on a number of Code grounds, nowhere in the Application did the applicant appear to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Application also appeared to be incomplete.

3On August 24, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application. Pursuant to the Notice of Incomplete Application, the applicant was required to provide additional information to the Tribunal by September 13, 2012. Pursuant to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”), the applicant was advised that, once the Application was complete, the Tribunal would consider whether it should be dismissed as being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it appeared that the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination allegedly committed by the respondents within the meaning of the Code. The NOID also required the applicant to provide submissions by September 13, 2012, in response to the jurisdiction issue.

4On September 10, 2012, the applicant provided materials in response to the Tribunal’s Notice of Incomplete Application and NOID.

DECISION

5An 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: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. In the present case, based on the Application and the applicant’s materials, I am satisfied that the Application does not raise allegations of discrimination within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

6With respect to the respondent, TCH, the Application contains a two-page narrative in which the applicant alleges that she was evicted from one of TCH’s units for payment issues. Nowhere in the Application does the applicant identify any acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by TCH. Further, in her response to the NOID, the applicant has not identified any incidents or the basis upon which she alleges that she was subjected to discrimination within the meaning of the Code by TCH. As such, I find that the applicant has not raised any matters that the Tribunal has the power to decide involving TCH.

7With respect to the remaining respondents, while they are named as respondents in the Application, there are no allegations related to these respondents whatsoever in the Application.

8In her response to the NOID, the applicant states that she was previously employed by the respondent, Loblaws Companies Ltd. (“Loblaws”), and that she has been in different courts for matters related to the treatment of her by union members and Loblaws’ employees since she was a child. She also states that when she started to work for Loblaws, “this behaviour” started again.

9The applicant also baldly asserts in her response to the NOID that she believes she was harassed and discriminated against by the respondents, Local 1000A Loblaws (the “union”) and Gary Brown, because she is female and related to a family connected to Loblaws. Appearing to raise reprisal, the applicant also baldly alleges in her response to the NOID that she was told by each party that the treatment they were displaying towards her was “payback” for standing up for herself in the past. No particulars are provided.

10The Application alleges discrimination in housing concerning matters that happened with TCH leading up to January 20, 2012. With respect to the respondent, Loblaws, a previous Decision of the Tribunal involving the applicant and Loblaws, 2011 HRTO 2126, states that the applicant worked for Loblaws between December 2003 and August 2007. In my view, in the present Application, the applicant has simply not set out any acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by Loblaws. In addition, there does not appear to be any connection at all between Loblaws and the allegations involving TCH set out in the Application, nor has the applicant established any such connection in her materials.

11While the applicant has also made some rather bald assertions concerning the remaining respondents, she has not actually explained how she was subjected to harassment or discrimination, or what treatment was displayed towards her, by the union and Mr. Brown, in general, or in any way related to the present Application.

12The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds and social areas listed in the Code. In my view, the applicant has not identified any incidents or the basis upon which she alleges that the Code was violated by any of the named respondents. I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide.

13The Application is dismissed.