Collin Dolny v. GoodLife Fitness Centers Inc., 2015 HRTO 1411

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Collin Dolny Applicant

-and-

GoodLife Fitness Centers Inc. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: October 22, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1411 Indexed as: Dolny v. GoodLife Fitness Centers Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Collin Dolny, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of sex, including sexual harassment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Application’s narrative is extensive and raises many concerns. In the main, the applicant appears to claim that he was unfairly accused by his employer of having sex with a colleague on the employer’s premises and of sexually harassing a former client.

3On October 2, 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 that he endured within the meaning of the Code.

4The applicant filed submissions opposing the dismissal. In his submissions he outlines the law related to discrimination and raises issues related to libel and defamation. From his submissions, it is unclear what, if any, connection any of his allegations had to Code-protected discrimination.

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, defamation etc. It is plain and obvious that the applicant’s allegations of mistreatment have no connection to the Code. 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.