Lin v. Yong, 2015 HRTO 1380

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin Applicant

-and-

Shenglan Yong Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: October 16, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1380 Indexed as: Lin v. Yong

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 occupation of accommodation because of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and reprisal.

2The applicant, who describes herself as Chinese, alleges that the respondent made false complaints about the applicant to assist the applicant’s landlord in evicting the applicant. The applicant also alleges that the respondent perjured herself in a proceeding before the Landlord and Tennant Board.

3By letter dated October 6, 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 October 7, 2015. The applicant did not address the issue of how the respondent’s alleged acts are connected to her ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin or how they amount to a reprisal. Rather, the applicant reiterated the allegations contained in her Application and made the bare assertion that the respondent violated her human rights.

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 actions taken by the respondent that have negatively affected the applicant. The applicant’s submissions did not, however, indicate that the respondent’s actions were in any way connected to the prohibited grounds of discrimination 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.