Mazia v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1664

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ivanmarino Mazia

Applicant

-and-

Legal Aid Ontario

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: December 10, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1664

Indexed as: Mazia v. Legal Aid Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ivanmarino Mazia, Applicant

Self-represented

introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of creed and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The purpose of this Decision is to determine whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3On September 24, 2014, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) to the applicant advising the applicant that the Application was incomplete and provided a form identifying which information was missing from the Application.

4Additionally, the NOID advised that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent, and having alleged reprisal or threat of reprisal, it failed to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code or instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code or refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. The NOID provided a deadline for the applicant to make submissions regarding the question of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with his Application.

5His written submissions, filed with the Tribunal on November 5, 2015, generally reiterated the allegations he made in his Application. By way of further submissions, filed with the Tribunal on November 24, 2015, the applicant withdrew his claim based on creed and requested that the Application proceed on the basis of reprisal only.

background

6The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against when the respondent refused to allow him to change counsel, refused to issue him a new certificate and refused to properly reassess his claim. In his Application, the applicant writes: “I was reprised against because, under the circumstances of being an inmate, I didn’t get equal and righteous treatment as I would – not being an inmate.”

decision

7Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Rule 13.2 further states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to ending the application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application. The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires him or her to file written submissions. Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 58 and Hotte v. Ontario (Finance) 2008 HRTO 63.

8In my view, if is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons.

9The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over every dispute between parties; it only has jurisdiction when the Application alleges that there were violations of the Code.

10In his Application, the applicant alleges that that the respondent reprised against him.

11Section 8 of the Code states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

12While he has alleged that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal, the applicant has not explained what link there is between the respondent’s actions and reprisal or threat of reprisal for having claimed and enforced his rights under the Code, for having instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code, or for refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code. It is clear that the applicant considers the respondent’s actions inappropriate and unfair, but in the absence of a link between the allegations made by the applicant and an explanation for how the respondent’s alleged actions were related to a reprisal under the Code, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to resolve the Application.

13I find that the Application does not make any allegations that the actions of the respondent constituted a reprisal or threat of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.

14Accordingly, I find that the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Application is therefore dismissed.