Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1298

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Richard Hennesy and Lisa Ditri

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: September 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1298

Indexed as: Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Katherine Lin, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.

2The applicant, who describes herself as Chinese, alleges that the Tribunal and its personnel, the individual respondents, mistreated her with respect to other Applications she filed with the Tribunal: Application 2015-21322-I and 2015-20774-I. Regarding application 2015-21322-I, the applicant states that the Tribunal informed her that the application was incomplete. The applicant states that she provided the information necessary to complete the application, but the Tribunal continued to advise her that the application was incomplete. The Tribunal did not clarify what remained incomplete, but sent the applicant a letter indicating it intended to dismiss the application. Regarding application 2015-20774-I, the applicant states that she filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) on May 31, 2015 that the Tribunal has not processed. The applicant states that the Tribunal did not process the Form 10 because it was waiting for the respondent’s Response, although the deadline for responding to the Form 10 had passed. The applicant alleges that the Registrar later sent her a letter indicating that the Tribunal received the Form 10 on July 23, 2015 and was not going to process it at that time.

3On September 16, 2015, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss advising the applicant that a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.

4The applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice on September 23, 2015. The applicant did not address the issue of how the respondents’ alleged acts are connected to her race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination. Rather, the applicant reiterated the allegations contained in her Application.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. Therefore, to be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction an Application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s behaviour to one or more prohibited ground of discrimination. The applicant described administrative actions taken by the Tribunal’s personnel with which she disagrees. The applicant did not, however, give any indication that these actions were related to the prohibited ground of discriminations on which she relies. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness, unless the unfairness is connected, at least in part, to a prohibited ground of discrimination. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389. In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application does not raise issues within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

7The Application is dismissed.