Nirupama Wickramasinghe v. Sharlene Dias and Mark Anthony, 2015 HRTO 1617

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nirupama Wickramasinghe

Applicant

-and-

Sharlene Dias and Mark Anthony

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: November 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1617

Indexed as: Wickramasinghe v. Dias

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nirupama Wickramasinghe, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She alleged that the respondents discriminated against her based on almost all of the grounds set out in the Code. Among other things, she alleges that the respondents lead a “mafia related group of scammers” that have stalked, verbally and mentally harassed, and physically and sexually assaulted the applicant. She has also alleged that they tortured her with laser beams and electrocuted her.

2On October 28, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the 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 within the meaning of the Code. The NOID also noted that the Application appeared to be untimely.

3The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

4At 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.

5The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over the anti-discrimination protections set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over alleged criminal conduct or alleged abuse or harassment that is unconnected to the grounds of discrimination protected under the Code. The applicant filed various documents that are aimed at showing that she has experienced harassment and abuse by a variety of people in a variety of settings. However, none of the documents she has submitted relate to any allegations of the discrimination or harassment based on a Code ground by the respondents named in this Application.

6It is plain and obvious that the allegations the applicant has made against the respondents 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

7I have great sympathy for the applicant. It is obvious from her Application that she faces significant challenges in her life. However, for the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.