Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Giuseppe Massa
Applicant
-and-
Upper Thames Conservation Authority, Shuttle Worth Exhaust System, City of London Parks and Recreation, Enterprise Holdings Inc. and Dominos Pizza
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Massa v. Upper Thames Conservation Authority
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Giuseppe Massa, Applicant
Self-represented
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 the provision of goods and services because of age, disability and reprisal.
2In his Application the applicant appears to allege that the respondents continue to sponsor a baseball league in which he was once a participant and that this is discriminatory in some way. He describes in detail a history of conflict with sponsors and various officials of the baseball league going back to his expulsion from the league in 2012. He makes allegations which appear to relate to matters arising in the course of a civil suit which he has launched against some or all of the respondents. He makes complaints related to Freedom of Information requests he has made of one respondent.
3On June 18, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appeared that the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The NOID also noted that the applicant alleged reprisal but did not explain how the respondents’ actions constitute reprisal within the meaning of the Code. The applicant was referred to two Decisions of the Tribunal dealing with the issues raised by his Application, Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32, and Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273.
4The applicant responded to the NOID but did not address the issues set out above in any meaningful way.
5At this preliminary stage before the Application has been delivered to the respondents and a Response (Form 2) has been filed, the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application where it is plain and obvious that it is outside its jurisdiction.
6Having reviewed the voluminous material filed by the applicant, much of it apparently related to court proceedings involving some of the issues raised in this Application, it is in my view plain and obvious that this Application ought to be dismissed because there appears to be no connection of any kind between the allegations of the applicant and the Code grounds he has cited. The applicant describes extensive conflict involving the various respondents and some of their employees who are involved in one way or the other with a baseball league in which the applicant participated for many years. The narratives are very detailed. What is missing is anything connecting the alleged actions of the various individuals involved and the Code. In this Application it appears that the allegation at the heart of the complaint is that these sponsors continue to support the league which the applicant alleges discriminated against him. It is not at all clear how there is any relationship between the respondents and the applicant in this respect that engages the Code. In any event, as previously stated there are no acts of differential treatment or discrimination in relation to the Code grounds the applicant has cited. The Application is therefore outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed for that reason.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of July, 2014.
“Signed by” ________________________________
David Muir
Vice-chair```