Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Lin Cao Applicant
-and-
IASK.CA Inc. Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: August 20, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1111 Indexed as: Cao v. IASK.CA Inc.
1On July 3, 2015, the applicant filed this Application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of sexual orientation and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On July 24, 2015, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) seeking submissions from the applicant with respect to whether the Application was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Decision
3Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Rule 13.2 further 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, request submissions from the applicant. Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Morin c. Alliance de la fonction publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58; and Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63.
4The Application alleges that some of his private information has been posted on a website. He believes that Canadian politicians or the government is involved in this disclosure. In response to the NOID, the applicant explained in his own words “So I just wrote an explanation letter to let you understand that the government invaded my privacy, and the journalists threatened and mocked my on internet by using my privacy. I consider those things are about human rights. Right?”
5In his narrative and submissions the applicant does not identify or even explain how any of the events are linked to a protected ground. Further, with respect to the issue of reprisal the applicant fails to identify when and how he claimed a right under the Code pursuant to s. 8.
6The Tribunal has repeatedly found that it does not have the jurisdiction to address general allegations of unfairness. The applicant’s allegations of reprisal, harassment and discrimination do not relate to the Code. In this case, I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious that this Application does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Order
7The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of August, 2015.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair