Nehemiah Thompson v. George Bobrovskkis, 2015 HRTO 1646

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nehemiah Thompson Applicant

-and-

George Bobrovskkis Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: December 4, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1646

Indexed as: Thompson v. Bobrovskkis

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nehemiah Thompson, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Application relates to the applicant’s former housing and the return of last month’s rent. The applicant alleges that after moving out of his housing unit, he returned to the premises to inquire about his last month’s rent. He alleges that his former landlord, Mr. Bobrovskkis, accused him of breaking and entering, and called the police. The Application alleges discrimination on the basis of receipt of public assistance and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant complains about his former landlord and his refusal to return money that the applicant alleges was owed to him. The applicant believes his former landlord was bullying him when he called the police. The applicant objects to having to pay first and last month’s rent because it allows a landlord to keep money even when a tenant finds another place to live.

3On October 20, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application 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.

4The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal. In his submissions he claims that he was racially discriminated against by his former landlord and the police. He stated that he did not want the Application dismissed.

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. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over the anti-discrimination protections set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness.

6It is plain and obvious that the allegations the applicant has made against his former landlord have no connection to the Code. The applicant’s allegation relates to the landlord’s refusal to return last month’s rent and the landlord calling the police. There is no allegation that the landlord’s conduct was influenced by the applicant’s race. 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.