McLaren v. Gatineau (City), 2014 HRTO 1797

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Douglas McLaren Applicant

-and-

City of Gatineau, Mayor Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, Chief of Police Mario Harell, Salvation Army, Shepherds of Good Hope, Le Gite Ami, Ottawa Mission, Garda Security/Best Security, Securitas Security, Boeing Corporation, Canadian Radio and Television Commission, Bell Corporation and Video Tron Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: December 18, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1797 Indexed as: McLaren v. Gatineau (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Douglas McLaren, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment, housing, goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability, creed, sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy, sexual solicitation or advances, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, association with a person identified by a ground listed and reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On August 18, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss the Application (“NOID”) because it appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the NOID indicated that the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

3In the NOID, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions regarding the jurisdictional issue. The applicant filed submissions; however, he did not identify any acts of alleged discrimination relating to any grounds protected under the Code.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

4At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s claim is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as the Application does not identify any acts of alleged discrimination based on any ground protected under the Code.

ORDER

5For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.