Brideau v. Wynne, 2014 HRTO 357

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Randy Brideau

Applicant

-and-

Kathleen Wynne

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 13, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 357

Indexed as: Brideau v. Wynne

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Randy Brideau, 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 employment because of colour and gender identity.

2In his Application the applicant alleges that the Ontario government has launched a pilot internship program for only those employees who “self identify as black female”. The applicant self identifies as a white male.

3On January 28, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appears that the Application did not allege that any of the rights of the applicant had been infringed and the Application was not filed on behalf of another person under section 34(5) of the Code. The applicant was referred to two Decisions of the Tribunal dealing with the issues raised by his Application: see Oliphant v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1902 and Freitag v. Penetanguishene (Municipality), 2010 HRTO 1704.

4The applicant responded to the NOID by complaining that the Tribunal is a “laughing stock and a joke” and does not protect anybody’s rights. The applicant also asserted that the Application was filed on behalf of every male and female in the province that is not black. The applicant took issue with a decision of the Tribunal which had no bearing on the issues raised by this Application or the NOID.

5At this preliminary stage before the Application has been delivered to the respondent and a Response (Form 2) has been filed, the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application where it is plain and obvious that it is outside its jurisdiction. However in my view it is plain and obvious that this Application must be dismissed because there is no indication that the applicant has experienced any discrimination as a consequence of the alleged conduct of the respondent.

6The applicant’s submissions are not helpful in determining this issue. However it appears based on limited information provided by the applicant that he has learned of this alleged pilot internship program and believes that it is discriminatory. However the applicant although he identifies as a white male does not indicate that he has applied for one of these internships and been denied the position for that reason. He does not assert that he is an employee in the Ontario Public Service and entitled to apply for one of these internships. Nor does he claim that he has filed the Application on behalf of a non-black person otherwise entitled to apply for such a position and been denied. Rather the applicant asserts that he has filed the Application on behalf of all males and females of the Province who are not black.

7In my view it is plain and obvious that the applicant does not have standing to file this Application. First the applicant does not allege that he applied for one of these positions and been denied. Moreover the applicant does not assert that he is an employee in the Ontario Public Service and therefore otherwise entitled to apply for one of these alleged internships. And as indicated the Application has not been filed on behalf of another person who has applied for one of these internships and been denied for discriminatory reasons.

8The applicant argues that the Application is filed on behalf of all of the males and females in the Province who are not black. Under the Code only the Ontario Human Rights Commission can initiate applications “in the public interest” which is essentially the applicant’s assertion.

9For all of these reasons I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious that this Application does not allege any violations of the rights of the applicant and is therefore outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed for that reason.