Singer v. Appleby College, 2015 HRTO 1288

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Singer

Applicant

-and-

Appleby College and Jimmy Wilson

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 29, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1288

Indexed as: Singer v. Appleby College

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Singer, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him because of ancestry, citizenship, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, record of offences, and association with a person identified by a Code ground contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). He also alleges reprisal contrary to the Code.

2His Application is very difficult to understand. The applicant appears to claim that he has been unjustly charged with criminal harassment. He also raises issues relating to libel, slander, moral traducement (sic) and turpitude.

3On August 18, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application (“NOID”) because it appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the NOID indicated that the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

4The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal. In his submissions he claims that he wishes to sue all psychiatrists everywhere. From his submissions, it is unclear what, if any, connection any of his allegations have to the respondents named in his Application.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

5At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s claims against the respondents fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over the anti-discrimination protections set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness, libel, slander, etc. It is plain and obvious that the allegations the applicant has made have no connection to the Code. It is also plain and obvious that there is no connection between his allegations and the respondents he named in his Application. Therefore, the Application is dismissed as it has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

ORDER

7For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.