Monks v. ACN Canada, 2014 HRTO 1372

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Monks

Applicant

-and-

ACN Canada

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: September 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1372

Indexed as: Monks v. ACN Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lisa Monks, 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 goods, services and facilities because of marital status.

2The applicant filed this Application on June 3, 2014. The applicant alleges that several members of ACN tried to convince her to join the respondent, despite the applicant’s clear statement that she did not wish to do so. The applicant alleges that ACN members continued to harass over a period of several weeks. This was a difficult time for the applicant because she was dealing with the loss of a close family member and another close family member was ill. The applicant states that, amongst other things, she had to tell the ACN members who continued to contact her about her family member’s illness to get them to stop calling her. The applicant states a group of people who were unknown to her were customers at the restaurant at which she works and one of them asked her how “last year was”. The applicant states that she asked the customer about the question and the customer informed her that the group was from ACN. The applicant alleges that the customer was insinuating that the applicant made up a story about her family members to get ACN members to stop calling, when in fact it was true.

3On July 16, 2014, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss that advised the applicant that a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions in response to the Notice by August 15, 2014.

4The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice on July 21, 2014. The applicant submitted that she did not know which legislation pertained to ACN’s conduct. She submitted, however, that she was bullied and harassed during a very stressful time of her life and that such behaviour should be prohibited by law. The applicant submitted that she did not deserve the treatment she received and strongly believed her human rights were violated.

Analysis and 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.

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. Therefore, to be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction an Application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s behaviour to one or more prohibited of discrimination. In this case, the applicant identifies marital status as the basis for the alleged discrimination or harassment she experienced. However, the applicant has not indicated how the behaviour she experienced was connected to her marital status. There also does not appear to be any basis for concluding that the respondent was in a service relationship with the applicant. In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application does not come within the Code.

7The Application is dismissed.