Northey v. The Waterdown Manor, 2014 HRTO 1837

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terry Northey

Applicant

-and-

The Waterdown Manor, Rocki Maimone and Anthony Gagliese

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: December 30, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1837 Indexed as: Northey v. The Waterdown Manor

Introduction

1In his Application, the applicant alleged that he experienced discrimination because of his age, disability and receipt of public assistance, and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). He named the following organizations and individuals as respondents to the Application: The Waterdown Manor, Rocki Maimone, Anthony Gagliese, the City of Hamilton, Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) – Barrie, Sherri Webb and Lisa Gibbons.

2In his Application, he alleged that The Waterdown Manor denied access to a bed for eight months, that he was denied access to external communications, that he was denied access to medical care, that he was punished for expressing concerns about vermin in the building, and that he was not provided with a prescribed diet and adequate fluids. He claimed that ODSP – Barrie, the City of Hamilton and two of its employees, Ms. Webb and Ms. Gibbons, ignored his complaints or failed to address his complaints about The Waterdown Manor.

3On July 24, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) as against the City of Hamilton, ODSP – Barrie, Sherri Webb and Lisa Gibbons. 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 these organizations and individuals.

4The Tribunal directed the applicant in the NOID to provide written submissions regarding the jurisdictional 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 against City of Hamilton, ODSP – Barrie, Sherri Webb and Lisa Gibbons fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

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 allegations the applicant made against City of Hamilton, ODSP – Barrie, Sherri Webb and Lisa Gibbons have no connection to any protected ground under the Code. The applicant’s claims against the above-listed respondents are in essence that they did not respond appropriately to his complaints. There is nothing in the Application that suggests that these respondents failed to adequately respond to the applicant’s complaints because of a ground protected 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 by these four respondents.

Order

8For the reasons set out above, the Application as against City of Hamilton, ODSP – Barrie, Sherri Webb and Lisa Gibbons is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

9In my view, the Application as against the remaining respondents should proceed to a summary hearing. The Tribunal will issue a separate Case Assessment Direction providing directions for the summary hearing of this mater.