Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Susan MacKenzie Applicant
-and-
Municipality of Assiginack Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: September 17, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1385 Indexed as: MacKenzie v. Assiginack (Municipality)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Susan MacKenzie, 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 contracts because of ancestry and family status.
2The Application relates to difficulties the applicant has had with the respondent regarding the road leading to her house. The applicant states that property near her home was sold and, as a result, the road leading to her home became a private road and was closed. The applicant states that she spent two years without an address and would not have been able to have emergency services attend at her home if needed. The applicant also states that her neighbour was not maintaining his property properly and the respondent would not address this concern.
3On August 15, 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 September 15, 2014.
4The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice on September 8, 2014. The applicant submitted that she had experienced discrimination “because a person has a relationship, association or other dealing with a person or persons who are identified by one of the gound (sic) listed”. The applicant did not, however, identify the person with whom she was associated or on which prohibited ground of discrimination that person was identified. The applicant reviewed her attempts to have the respondent deal with her issues regarding her property and why she disagreed with the respondent’s reaction to her concerns. The applicant also stated that believes that the respondent’s personnel think that because she is from “the Slash” and is a woman that they can do as they please without consequence to them.
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. The applicant is in a dispute with her local municipality regarding the road to her home and the state of neighbouring properties. However, the applicant has not indicated how the behaviour she experienced was connected to her ancestry or marital status. The applicant’s submissions about being from “the Slash” and her gender are bare assertions that do not provide a proper basis for concluding that the respondent’s actions could be linked to a Code ground.
7In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application does not come within the Code.
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 17^th^ day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair