Simon v. Burlington (City), 2015 HRTO 317

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Simon Applicant

-and-

City of Burlington Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: March 13, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 317 Indexed as: Simon v. Burlington (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

John Simon, Applicant Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services on the basis of reprisal. Specifically, the applicant alleges he experienced discrimination when the respondent issued him a ticket for having a boat trailer parked in his driveway overnight when those who park campers in their driveways are provided with 15 overnight exemptions to this by-law infraction.

2On January 16, 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 fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code and fails to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was reprisal.

3The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on February 19, 2015. The submissions add details in support of his claim but they do not address the apparent absence of a link between the issuing of the ticket and a Code ground or explain how the respondent’s behaviour was reprisal.

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.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment, services, contracts) 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 under section 8 of the Code.

6Section 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.

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 experienced when the ticket was issued is grounded in the Code or that it amounts to reprisal.

8Based on the information before me, I find it plain and obvious that the allegations of discrimination, which are not linked to a Code ground, do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

ORDER

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