James LeClair v. Brockville Police Services, 2014 HRTO 521

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James LeClair

Applicant

-and-

Brockville Police Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: April 11, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 521

Indexed as: LeClair v. Brockville Police Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

James LeClair, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services.

2In the narrative of the Application, the applicant alleges the respondent involved itself in two different human rights Applications filed by the applicant with the Tribunal. The applicant alleges further that the respondent ignored a crime that he reported because the person he was reporting is a friend of a police officer with the respondent.

3In the Application, the applicant did not rely on any prohibited grounds of discrimination and made no attempt to link his complaint with a ground of discrimination.

4On March 14, 2014, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The NOID was issued because the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide) on the following basis:

a review of the Application and the 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 respondent(s).

5The applicant completed the Request for Additional Information on March 27, 2014. He relied upon the ground of reprisal and repeated his allegation regarding the respondent “putting their noses into the HRTO file when it did not have anything to do with them”.

6Rule 13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures permits the Tribunal to dismiss an application at a preliminary stage if it is plain and obvious that the application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. The reprisal section of the Code only applies to actions that are intended as a reprisal for asserting one’s human rights.

7There are no facts identified in the Application that would support a complaint of reprisal under the Code. The applicant alleges the respondent failed to act on his reporting of a crime because the applicant was reporting someone who is a “buddy” with the police. There is no explanation in the Application as to how this event is connected in any way to the previous human rights Applications filed by the applicant. In the absence of such a connection, the applicant is complaining about general unfairness by the respondent. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over such a complaint.

8Similarly, the applicant has not identified any facts regarding how the respondent interfered or involved itself in his previous human rights Applications and how that alleged interference is an act of reprisal. In the absence of any facts in support of the applicant’s complaint of reprisal, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.