Singer v. Obama, 2015 HRTO 170

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Singer

Applicant

-and-

Barack Obama

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: February 5, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 170

Indexed as: Singer v. Obama

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Singer, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment, housing, goods, services and facilities, contracts, and membership in a vocational association because of ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, family status, receipt of public assistance, record of offences, and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicant identifies the date of the last event as being February 5, 2014 and the city/town in which the discrimination occurred as being Toronto and Sarasota, Florida. He self-identifies as being, amongst other things, white, male, Jewish, divorced, and a member of "Hebrew Union". He provides his date of birth.

3The Application purports to engage every social area and many grounds under the Code. It names various past and present heads of state, public figures, and international organizations as respondents. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, is the only respondent for which an address for service has been provided. The application itself is largely incoherent, written in English and another language, and aside from naming the social areas and grounds under the Code, fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

4The Tribunal sent a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application ("NOID") to the applicant. In it, the Tribunal stated that it would consider whether it should dismiss the completed Application as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the events described in the Application do not appear to be connected to Ontario and a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.

5The applicant ultimately filed three additional letters that were incoherent , and non-responsive to the issues identified in the NOID. One of the letters identified two new respondents but again failed to provide addresses for service.

analysis and decision

6At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, before an application is sent to a respondent for a response, 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 are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction as the Application does not identify any acts of alleged discrimination based on any ground protected by the Code. There are no allegations specifically about the one individual respondent for whom contact information was provided.

7In light of this determination, I do not need to address whether the allegations are connected to Ontario as identified in the NOID.

8Furthermore, I note that an address for service was provided for only one individual respondent and despite being provided an opportunity the applicant has not been responsive to providing contact information for any of the other named respondents. Without addresses for service, the Application could not have proceeded against the other named respondents even if there were allegations within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Given it is not even possible to provide notice of the Application or its dismissal to these other named respondents, I order their names removed from the style of cause.

order

9For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.