Northey v. MacKinnon, 2014 HRTO 1836

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Terry Northey

Applicant

-and-

Dave MacKinnon and David Strain

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: December 30, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1836 Indexed as: Northey v. MacKinnon

Introduction

1In his Application, the applicant alleged that his Ontario Disability Support Program ("ODSP") case worker, David Strain, and his manager, Dave MacKinnon, discriminated against him because of disability and reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2Among other things, the applicant alleged that Mr. Strain ignored his requests, became angry when challenged, accused him of altering or falsifying medical documents, and took a month to approve replacement parts for his medical device. The applicant claimed that the respondents' behaviour was abusive and cruel and that they showed no accountability.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application ("NOID") on the basis that it appeared that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the Application. 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 allegedly committed by the respondents.

4The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the issue set out in the NOID. The applicant sought an extension of time to make submissions in response to the NOID. However, ultimately, the applicant did not file any submissions in response to the NOID.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

5At 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 claims in the Application fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Code.

6The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over cases of general unfairness that is unconnected to a ground protected under the Code. It is plain and obvious that the applicant is dissatisfied with the way the respondents have handled his ODSP claim. However, there is nothing in the Application that suggests that they treated the applicant any differently because of his disability or as a reprisal for enforcing his rights under the Code.

7In light of the above, the Application is dismissed as it has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

Order

8For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.