McCullough v. Hastings and Prince Edward School Board, 2015 HRTO 282

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Keith McCullough

Applicant

-and-

Hastings and Prince Edward School Board, Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic School Board and Ontario Provincial Police

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: March 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 282 Indexed as: McCullough v. Hastings and Prince Edward School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Keith McCullough, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that “no trespass” orders issued by the respondent School Boards may infringe his right to attend candidates meetings during elections and his right to attend school board meetings.

2On February 13, 2015 the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The NOID advised the applicant that 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. The NOID also stated that the Applicant had failed to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was reprisal.

3The applicant’s submissions were received by the Tribunal on February 24, 2015. The submissions do not address the issue that the allegations in his Application do not have a link to a Code ground. Also, they do not explain how the respondents’ behaviour was reprisal. The applicant’s submissions repeat some of the same narrative while adding a few more details as to why he feels his rights are violated.

decision and analysis

4Section 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.

5In order to fall within section 8, an application must allege that the respondents’ actions took place in response to the applicant engaging in any of the following activities:

• claiming or enforcing a Code protected right;
• instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or
• refusing to infringe the right of another person.

See: Noble v. York University, 2010 HRTO 878.

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment, services, contracts, etc.) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code such as age, race, marital status or disability. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in 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 grounds of discrimination listed in section 1 of the Code or demonstrate how the respondent’s behaviour amounts to a reprisal within the meaning of s.8.

7In the Application and submissions, the applicant has not alleged any facts that make any link between his claims and a Code ground. The applicant has made no allegation or provided any facts to support a claim that the alleged unfairness he experience as a result of being issued “no trespass” orders by the respondent School Boards is grounded in the Code or that it amounts to reprisal.

8For the reasons stated above, I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s allegations are not grounded in the Code or do they not support the claim of reprisal and therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application.

ORDER

9For the reasons set out above, this Application is dismissed.