Tomasz Raba v. Law Help Ontario, 2015 HRTO 137

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tomasz Raba

Applicant

-and-

Law Help Ontario

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: January 29, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 137

Indexed as: Raba v. Law Help Ontario

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant seeks damages in the amount of $1,000,000,000.00

2In his Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent denied him free legal services and that the respondent threatened to call the police to physically remove him from the clinic.

3On November 24, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) because it appears that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The NOID indicated that while the applicant alleges discrimination based on reprisal or threat of reprisal, the applicant failed to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code, or refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. The NOID also indicated that the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.

4The Tribunal directed the applicant in the NOID to provide written submissions regarding the jurisdictional issue set out in the NOID on or before January 7, 2015. The Tribunal extended the deadline for written submissions to January 29, 2015. Written submissions were filed on January 16, 2015.

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 claim against the respondent falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6The applicant’s application and his submissions in reply to the NOID do not address the elements set out in paragraph 3 above necessary to sustain a reprisal claim under the Code. In his reply submissions the applicant writes “every time I go there they either tell me to leave or call security to deny me any services using reprisals and threats”. Clearly, the applicant’s use of the term “reprisals” does not reflect Code related reprisals.

7The applicant’s claim against the respondent is in essence that the respondent did not provide him with free legal services. There is nothing in the Application or the applicant’s submissions that suggests that this denial was because of a ground protected under the Code. It is clear that that the applicant sees this denial as unfair, however, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over cases of unfairness that are unconnected to a ground protected by the Code.

8In light of the above, the Application is dismissed as it has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

order

9The Application is dismissed.