Augaitis v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2015 HRTO 1481

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Edvardas Augaitis Applicant

-and-

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: November 4, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1481 Indexed as: Augaitis v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Edvardas Augaitis, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to employment; housing; and goods, services and facilities because of sexual solicitation and advances and sexual orientation.

2The narrative to the Application is difficult to follow, but the applicant makes a number of often vague allegations about his siblings, neighbours and other in his community. The only allegation concerning the respondent appears to be that the applicant alleges that the respondent released MRI information about the applicant to members of his community to use against him.

3By letter dated September 22, 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. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions addressing this issue.

4The applicant filed written submissions on October 22, 2015. The applicant’s submissions again contain vague and unusual allegations against mostly unidentified parties. The applicant states that he had a MRI performed by the respondent in or around 1995. The applicant submitted that this information has been disclosed to unnamed parties to use for nefarious, but very unclearly described purposes.

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. To begin with and with all due respect, the Application contains many often vague and bizarre allegations against a variety of parties, some of whom are not properly identified. The allegation against the respondent seems to be that it released information from a MRI test performed on the applicant to unidentified parties. Release of such private information would be a serious matter, but privacy matters are not covered by the Code and are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In the circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7The Application is dismissed.