Aldrik Dyk v. Country Terrace Omini Home, 2015 HRTO 397

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Aldrik Dyk

Applicant

-and-

Country Terrace Omini Home

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: March 26, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 397

Indexed as: Dyk v. Country Terrace Omini Home

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Aldrik Dyk, 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 disability, family status and reprisal. Specifically, the applicant alleges he experienced discrimination when the respondent restricted his visits in the respondent care home.

2On February 6, 2015 the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID). The NOID advised the applicant that 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 and fail to explain how the respondent’s behaviour was reprisal.

3The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the NOID by March 9, 2015. To date, the applicant has not filed any submissions.

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, 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 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 for so doing.

7The Application does not allege any facts that make any link between the applicant’s 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 respondent placed restrictions on his visits is grounded in the Code or that this 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 as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.