Obermuller v. Enbridge Gas Distribution, 2014 HRTO 1549

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Cheryl Obermuller Applicant

-and-

Enbridge Gas Distribution and Direct Energy Canada Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: October 17, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1549 Indexed as: Obermuller v. Enbridge Gas Distribution

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cheryl Obermuller, 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 services on the basis of reprisal. Specifically, the applicant alleges her gas service was unfairly cut off for a period of seven months.

2On September 10, 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 (1) fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents and (2) fails to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was reprisal.

3The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice on September 22, 2014. The applicant did not address the issue of the absence of a link to the ground of reprisal, but instead simply listed more particulars concerning what she regarded as unfair treatment by the respondents.

Analysis and Decision

4An 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.

5The 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 grounds of discrimination. The Application and submissions deals with allegations of what the applicant regards as unfair and demeaning treatment, but on the face of these documents, there is no connection between this treatment and any ground in the Code.

6In 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.