Khan v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2014 HRTO 428

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohamed Khan

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General, Liesureworld Caregiving Centre, The O’Neil Centre, Constable Andrew Campbell, Karen MacDuffee, Tony Galloro, Tina Chavez, Mohini Seetram, Cathy Fiore, Hyacinth Daley, Hugo Soto, Mark MacCormic and Zabina Sankar

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: March 26, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 428

Indexed as: Khan v. Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mohammed Khan, 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”) on June 4, 2013. The Application alleges discrimination in services, housing and contracts on the basis of ancestry and family status. The Application also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal. This Decision addresses whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this Application.

2The Application contains a lengthy narrative setting out a series of events covering the period August 2011 to what appears to be November 2012. Among other things, the Application alleges that the applicant was arrested and the applicant’s mother was removed from the apartment she shared with the applicant and eventually placed in a nursing home under the guardianship of the applicant’s sisters as opposed to recognizing the applicant’s power of attorney with respect to his mother. In addition, it alleges that certain health care facilities refused to release the applicant’s mother or recognize the applicant’s power of attorney. Further, the Application alleges that property was taken from the applicant and his mother including from bank accounts.

3Beyond the narrative, the applicant does not explain why his concerns with the various named respondents engage a prohibited ground (for example, ancestry or family status) under the Code or constitute a reprisal under the Code.

4In addition, with respect to the “reprisal or threat of reprisal” allegation, the Application does not explain how the respondents’ behaviour was related to any of the following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; or, instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32; Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273.

5The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application stating that the applicant had listed several organizational respondents but had failed to provide contact information for each. After a reminder and a subsequent request for an extension, the applicant filed contact information for nine respondents including only some of the organizations originally identified and including other individuals not originally named. In the title of proceeding I have included only those organizational respondents and individuals for whom contact information was provided.

6On October 3, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Notice stated:

The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction:

A review of the Application and 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.

Your completed Application does not appear to raise an issue the HRTO has the jurisdiction (power) to resolve as follows:

You allege discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal” but have failed to explain how the respondents behaviour was related to any of the following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code [s.8]. See for example, Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32; Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273.

7The applicant has filed written submissions in response to the Notice. While the applicant provides further details of what occurred and references that the actions were discriminatory, criminal and/or unconstitutional, it is not apparent from these materials why the applicant feels he was discriminated against based on a ground prohibited by the Code. The nature of the alleged discrimination is unclear and the applicant has not explained how the respondents’ acts discriminated against him on the basis of a prohibited ground.

8The Tribunal does not have a general power to decide whether the respondents treated the applicant fairly or appropriately. The Tribunal’s powers relate only to alleged discrimination and violations of the Code and not any other legislation. In other words, while the applicant has clearly stated that he feels mistreated by the respondents, to fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide), he must also explain how this alleged mistreatment relates to a ground and social area under the Code.

9Based on the materials filed by the applicant, I cannot conclude that there is a relationship between the Code and the allegations contained in the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.