Scicluna v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2015 HRTO 1091

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Valeria Scicluna

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Peel (Regional Municipality), Social Benefits Tribunal and Kevin Thatcher and Associates Ltd.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: August 17, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1091

Indexed as: Scicluna v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Valeria Scicluna, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods and services, and contracts because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application names numerous respondents and makes numerous allegations. Many of the allegations relate to the applicant's involvement in family law matters and bankruptcy proceedings. In some instances there are no allegations made against a respondent that has been named in the Application.

3On June 29, 2015 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") as it appears the Application is outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The NOID advised the applicant that it appears that the allegations made in the Application fail to identify any incidents that are connected to the grounds of discrimination as protected by the Code. The NOID directed the applicant to provide written submissions to address the issue that the allegations were not connected to Code grounds.

4The applicant has provided numerous documents as her submissions in response to the NOID, including many documents and some further details about her allegations. Many of the documents submitted to the Tribunal appear to be documents that were prepared for family law and bankruptcy proceedings and further action at the Superior Court that the applicant took against Kevin Thatcher and Associates Ltd.

5In some of the documents and submissions filed in response to the NOID, the applicant alleges that she has experienced discrimination by a number of government offices and by lawyers who have represented her. The allegations of discrimination by government offices appear to be in relation to her interactions with these offices in her receipt of social assistance or attempts to get social assistance. The allegations against lawyers appear to be in relation to failure to accommodate her disabilities in the bankruptcy proceedings.

6All of the allegations against the government offices and lawyers are broad statements and do not contain any details about how the discrimination is alleged to have occurred; who is alleged to have discriminated; and where and when the discrimination is alleged to have occurred. The applicant needs to provide these details before the Tribunal can determine whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the allegations.

No Allegations Made Against Certain Respondents

7The applicant names Menu Foods, Ministry of Labour; Solstice Two Ltd., Trebas Institute; Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities; Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Davies Smith Developments Inc. as respondents to the Application. The applicant has not provided any details or specific allegations against these respondents.

8I find it plain and obvious that the Application against the respondents identified in paragraph 7 must be dismissed. There are no allegations made in the original application or in the submissions that are connected to these respondents.

ORDER

9The Application against Davies Smith Developments Inc., Menu Foods, Ministry of Labour, Solstice Two Ltd., Trebas Institute, Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada is dismissed. These organizations are removed as respondents to the Application. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.

10By August 31, 2015, the applicant shall provide to the Tribunal with the following details:

a. how the alleged discrimination by Kevin Thatcher and Associates Ltd., Ministry of Community and Social Services, Peel (Regional Municipality), and Social Benefits Tribunal is alleged to have occurred. These details shall include who is alleged to have discriminated, what happened, and where and when the discrimination is alleged to have occurred; and

b. if any of these allegations occurred more than one year before the Application was filed and are not part of a series of incidents within the meaning of s.34(1) of the Code the applicant must provide reasons for the delay in filing that would demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith.

11I am not seized.