Massa v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2014 HRTO 1003

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Giuseppe Massa

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the London Police Services Board

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 9, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1003 Indexed as: Massa v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

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, association and reprisal.

2On May 9, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy and a Request to Expedite his Application.

3In his Application the applicant alleges that the “Jail guards and policemen are in conflict of interest and should not be in our baseball league.”

4On June 18, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appeared that the Application had failed to identify any specifics 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.

5The applicant responded to the NOID but did not address the issues set out above in any meaningful way. He reiterated his view that he believed that the participation of police and correctional officers in a baseball league was a conflict of interest.

6At 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.

7The applicant’s submissions are not helpful in determining this issue. In my view it is plain and obvious that this Application ought to be dismissed because there appears to be no connection of any kind between the allegation of the applicant and the Code grounds he has cited. Whether or not police officers and correctional officers should engage in recreational activities together is not an issue that the Code addresses. It is also entirely unclear what Code-protected right of the applicant’s is impacted by these allegations. The Application is therefore outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed for that reason.