HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Arlene Preddie
Applicant
-and-
Travelers Canada-Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada-Travelers Insurance Company-Travelers-St. Paul Travelers-St. Paul Fire and Marine, City of Toronto Police Department-14th Division, Niagara Regional Police, and Toronto Police Service
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Preddie v. Travelers Canada-Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada-Travelers Insurance Company-Travelers-St. Paul Travelers-St. Paul Fire and Marine
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Arlene Preddie, Applicant
Self-represented
1This is an Application filed on May 21, 2014 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment, housing, and goods, services and facilities, because of colour, disability, creed and reprisal.
2The applicant identifies herself as a 40 year old black woman of Caribbean descent who is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The lengthy narrative to the Application describes several incidents, beginning roughly with the cessation of her employment with Travelers Insurance in 2011 until sometime in April 2014. The applicant states that she has been “targeted” and is under constant surveillance. The applicant believes that it is the police who are monitoring her and making public information about the applicant’s intentions. The applicant states that she is blocked from completing or participating in any activity she attempts. The applicant states that the Toronto police declined to investigate her complaints regarding surveillance. The applicant describes several incidents in which she was apprehended by the police and also incidents in which she was hospitalized. The applicant describes her difficulties over the last several years in securing employment or volunteer work and the hardships she has endured, including homelessness and hunger. The narrative also indicates that the applicant has experienced difficulties with her mother and within her church.
3On August 12, 2014, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) that advised her that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because 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 respondents. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions in response to the NOID by September 11, 2014. By e-mail message dated September 30, 2014, the Tribunal again sent the NOID to the applicant and directed her to reply to it by October 6, 2014. The applicant replied to the Tribunal in an e-mail message dated October 3, 2014 in which, amongst other things, the applicant requested an extension of time to reply to the NOID. By e-mail message dated October 16, 2014, the Tribunal granted the applicant an extension to October 20, 2014 to file her submissions to the NOID. On October 21, 2014, the applicant sent an e-mail message to the Tribunal commenting on the Application, but the message did not contain submissions regarding the NOID. By e-mail message dated October 22, 2014, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the NOID by November 4, 2014, failing which the Tribunal will decide the issue of jurisdiction based only on the information set out in the Application, or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application.
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. The narrative to the Application indicates that the applicant’s life has been quite difficult over the last several years. There is nothing on the face of the Application, however, that connects the respondents’ alleged actions to the prohibited grounds of discrimination on which the applicant bases her claim. Moreover, many of the incidents described in the Application were not attributed to the respondents and there do not appear to be any allegations involving St. Paul Fire and Marine. The applicant does not describe how any of the respondents’ actions were actions intended to retaliate against or punish the applicant for asserting her human rights. In my view, it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application does not come within the Code.
5The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of November, 2014.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair