J.B. v. York (Regional Municipality), 2015 HRTO 283

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

J.B. by his Litigation Guardian J.B.

Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of York

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: March 10, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 283

Indexed as: J.B. v. York (Regional Municipality)

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment because of age.

2In a Registrar’s letter dated January 12, 2015, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions no later than February 2, 2015 on issue of whether the Application should be dismissed because it falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the applicant was directed to provide written submissions on the issue of whether the Application falls outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Code defines “age” to mean an age that is 18 years or more.

3The applicant did not provide submissions and the time for doing so has now passed.

Analysis and Decision

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

5In this case, the applicant wished to respond to a job posting that listed enrollment in full-time post-secondary education as an essential job qualification. He was 15 at the time. He claims the job requirement discriminates on the basis of age.

6Age is defined in section 10(1) of the Code as follows:

“age” means an age that is 18 years or more.

7Because the Code defines “age” as 18 years or more, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction, which means the Tribunal cannot hear the Application, to consider an age discrimination claim made by a person who is under 18. The only way that the Tribunal can hear such a case is when the person who is under age 18 is also making a claim that the definition of age in the Code violates his or her equality rights that are to be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11. The Tribunal made a similar decision in D.F. v. University of Ottawa, 2011 HRTO 1318.

8The Application is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.