Alan Boswell v. Time Inc. and Evan Bennett, 2015 HRTO 674

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alan Boswell Applicant

-and-

Time Inc. and Evan Bennett Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: May 22, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 674 Indexed as: Boswell v. Time Inc.

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of marital status and family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant seeks $2,000,000.00 in damages.

2Among other things, the applicant alleged that he was subject to harassment activity in his employment with “phony jobs, phoney resume claims, drug claims and apparently wants money”.

3On February 12, 2015 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that it appeared that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the Application. Specifically, the NOID indicated that the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.

4The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the issue set out in the NOID. The Tribunal received a series of letters from the applicant, but they did not address the issues raised in the NOID. In one letter the applicant wrote:

I received your intent to dismiss. I will be leaving the province as a result. Marital status is an issue at every employer involved…. I have no intention of getting married for a job. I believe I’m entitled to my claim. That’s all I have to say.

analysis and decision

5At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s claims in the Application do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Code.

6The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over cases that are unconnected to a ground protected under the Code. It is plain and obvious that the allegations against the respondents have no connection to any protected ground under the Code. It is clear that the applicant feels that he has been mistreated by the respondents; however, there is nothing in the Application that suggests that the respondents treated the applicant any differently because of his marital and family status.

7In light of the above, the Application is dismissed as it has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

order

8For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.