Chiu v. Muhammad, 2014 HRTO 439

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Derek Chiu

Applicant

-and-

Naeem Hafiz Muhammad

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: March 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 439

Indexed as: Chiu v. Muhammad

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Derek Chiu, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on October 25, 2013 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal.

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether the Application should be dismissed at this preliminary stage because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”). The NOID is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

4On December 4, 2013, the Tribunal Registrar sent a NOID to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent including any allegation of reprisal or the threat of reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Code. The Tribunal also identified that there may be an issue as to delay in filing the Application. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions responding to the issues identified by January 18, 2014.

5The applicant filed submissions on January 18, 2014, alleging that he experienced reprisal in the form of continuing and ongoing harassment and complaints levelled against him because he had been tasked with investigating a claim of sexual harassment involving the respondent. He also argued that there was no delay in filing the Application because the last in the series of incidents of discrimination occurred within a year of filing and, alternatively, if there was delay, he could establish a good faith reason for any delay.

6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Based on the applicant’s submissions, it is not plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

7A copy of the Application, the NOID and the submissions filed by the applicant in response to the NOID, and this Interim Decision will be sent to the respondent. The respondent is directed to file a Response to the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

8I am not seized.