Babic v. Homovka, 2015 HRTO 691

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dobroslavka Babic Applicant

-and-

Karla Homovka, Jeff-Poul-Vlad Croll-Bernand-Scekik, Valerie Simunovic and Perk Leark Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 27, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 691 Indexed as: Babic v. Homovka

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dobroslavka Babic, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, and marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2Her Application is very difficult to understand. The applicant appears to claim that the respondents have stalked and raped her. She claims they used fake names and dressed up as other people to threaten and beat her. She also claims that one or more of the respondents committed genocide against her family in Bosnia.

3On July 24, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application ("NOID") because it appeared to be outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. 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.

4The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal.

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 against the respondents fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

6The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over the anti-discrimination protections set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over alleged violations of human rights or international law that occurred outside Ontario. It also does not have jurisdiction over criminal offences occurring in Ontario. It is plain and obvious that the allegations the applicant has made against the respondents have no connection to the Code. Therefore, the Application is dismissed as it has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

Order

7I have great sympathy for the applicant. It is obvious from her Application that she faces significant challenges in her life. However, for the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.