HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Anthony Hicks
Applicant
-and-
Service de Police de la Ville de Gatineau
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Hicks v. Service de Police de la Ville de Gatineau
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, ethnic origin and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On July 9, 2015 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the subject-matter of the Application did not appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
3The applicant filed submissions in support of his position that the Application falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. He submits that this respondent is part of a white supremacist group that is targeting him. He also asserts that the respondent is subjecting him to reprisal in an effort to get him to withdraw another Application that he has filed against another respondent.
Decision
4The applicant complains of events that occurred in in the City of Gatineau, in the Province of Quebec.
5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is governed by the Code and applies to certain social areas and events that must have some connection to the Province of Ontario. The Tribunal has stated in Cash v. Stryker, 2009 HRTO 1738 at paras 3 and 4:
The Tribunal was created by a provincial statute and the rights provided for in the Code are statutory in nature. As a provincial statute, the Code is subject to the constitutional limitation that provinces may not legislate "extra-territorially". The Constitution Act, 1867, makes it clear that provincial legislative jurisdiction is confined to "property and civil rights in the Province" (s. 92(13)), and "generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province" (s. 92(16)).
A provincial statute may, however, cover acts occurring outside the province where the acts, in pith and substance, relate to matters within the province. Thus, where an act of discrimination with respect to employment is alleged to have occurred outside Ontario, but relates to an employment relationship that in other respects is an Ontarian one, the Tribunal will have jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
6In this the Application relates to the alleged services provided by the respondent. However, there are no allegations in the Application that this service relationship occurred within the Province of Ontario. As such, based on the materials before me there is an insufficient connection between the allegations in the Application and the Province of Ontario.
7I am satisfied therefore that it is plain and obvious that the subject-matter of the Application does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Code and that therefore it must be dismissed.
Order
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of August, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair