Babic v. Hamilton Police Station, 2015 HRTO 322

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Dobroslavka Babic Applicant

-and-

Hamilton Police Station COST-Cop-All Employees, COST organization, Mental Health Association, Kroma Management LTD., YWCA-All Staff, Staff all and all residents- Cop Blair-tenant one of them and Glenn De Clair Respondents

-and-

Dobroslavka Babic Applicant

-and-

Community Schizophrenia Services and COST and Hamilton Police Station Respondents

-and-

Dobroslavka Babic Applicant

-and-

St. Joseph Health Care Hamilton, YWCA, Mental Health Association, Community Schizophrenia Service, Kroma Management LTD., C.O.S.T organization within St. Joseph Hospital, and Royal Bank RBC Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: March 18, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 322 Indexed as: Babic v. Hamilton Police Station

Background

1The applicant has filed three Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services, and housing on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, family status and marital status. These Applications have not been delivered to the respondents.

2The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss the Applications (“NOID”) on the basis that the Applications appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. All of the NOIDs noted that a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents. One of the NOIDs noted that with respect to the respondent, the Royal Bank RBC, appeared to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated employer or service provider.

3The Tribunal notes that on January 9, 2015 that an Application that the applicant had previously filed against a number of respondents, including Kroma Management and Mental Health Association, which are also respondents in the above-noted Applications was dismissed in Decision 2015 HRTO 15.

4The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOIDs which did not address the issues.

Decision

5Under 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. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Belcastro v. Metrolinx Go Transit, 2012 HRTO 2121.

6For the reasons set out below, I have determined that it is plain and obvious that these Applications make no allegations of discrimination protected by the Code.

7In her Applications the applicant identifies none of the personal characteristics associated with the grounds of discrimination she has claimed. Moreover the narrative of the Applications identifies no acts of differential treatment by any of the many respondents related to any of the alleged grounds.

8The applicant appears to allege that various individuals associated with the various respondents wore “masks and wigs”. The applicant also alleges makes broad allegations against a number of judges who she says where “fake” and that one of the judges’ real identities is that of Adolf Hitler.

9In addition the narratives while very difficult to understand appear to relate in large part to a number of attempts to murder or mistreat the applicant’s son. The applicant also appears to allege that her son was taken to a hospital in an attempt to murder him. The Application is not filed on behalf of another person and there is nothing in the Application which would support an application by the applicant on behalf of her son.

10The applicant also alleges that a bank refused to release money to her son even though he was willing to go to the bank. The applicant alleges that the bank manager is a member of the Mafia.

11The applicant’s submissions in response to the NOIDs are not helpful in determining the subject matter of the Application. There are references to Hollywood actors not being government employees. The applicant also submits that various officials of government are the children of Adolf Hitler. However the applicant makes no allegations which connect any alleged act of the respondent to the various grounds of discrimination she has cited. In short there are no facts set out in the Application which relate to this alleged ground of discrimination.

12As regards the allegations against the bank, the applicant makes no submissions in response to the NOID on this point. Based on the limited information contained in the Application the applicant has identified as the respondent a federally chartered bank and perhaps an alleged failure to provide banking services to the applicant or her son. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this aspect of the Application.

13For all of these reasons I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application raises no issues under the Code and must be dismissed.

14In light of the fact that the applicant has filed the three above-noted Applications as against a number of the same respondents, which allege overlapping allegations the Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to issue one Decision dismissing these three Application.