Campbell v. Durham District School Board, 2014 HRTO 119

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Keon Campbell

Applicant

-and-

Durham District School Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: January 27, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 119

Indexed as: Campbell v. Durham District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Keon Campbell, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed on March 20, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, age and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.

2On May 17, 2013, the Tribunal Registrar sent a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code that were allegedly committed by the respondent. The Tribunal required the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by no later than June 16, 2013.

3On May 23, 2013, the applicant filed an Application Form, indicating that a correction had been made to response to Question 7, which inquires about the location and date of alleged incidents of discrimination. The applicant did not provide any submissions regarding how the incidents described in the Application amount to discrimination on Code grounds.

4The narrative of the Application indicates that the applicant witnessed and inadvertently became embroiled in a physical altercation involving several young men at a mall in Ajax. The narrative describes how the applicant and another young man interceded at different points to diffuse the situation and prevent further violence. The narrative goes on to indicate that the applicant left the mall and the applicant noticed police entering the mall, after which he joined several friends and proceeded to school. The applicant indicates that a Mr. K and Mr. P, who are not identified or described, looked at the applicant and his friends suspiciously as they walked to school. Finally, the narrative indicates that the applicant and his friends went to the school cafeteria and shortly thereafter the applicant and another young man went to their lockers. The applicant stated that on the way to his locker he saw a young man whom he understood stole money from his cousin in the hallway. In response to questions on Form 1-C, a questionnaire that elicits further details regarding applications alleging discrimination in good, services and facilities, the applicant indicated that he was subject to “false accusations and denied restorative justice” and that he witnessed “black youth targeted, given harsh discipline and denied restorative justice”. The applicant did not, however, indicate what these accusations were, who made them, how black youths were targeted or disciplined, or how these accusations were connected to the incident in the mall. The applicant provided no explanation regarding how the allegations he made are connected to the respondent.

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. Despite being directed to do so, the applicant has not explained how the incidents described in the Application amount to discrimination under the Code. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6The Application is dismissed.