Dzenis v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 863

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Esther Dzenis

Applicant

-and-

Birchcliff Public School and Toronto District School Board

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: June 26, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 863

Indexed as: Dzenis v. Toronto District School Board

Introduction

1This Application was filed on May 7, 2014. The applicant alleges discrimination in in employment, housing, services, contracts and membership in a vocational association, on numerous grounds of discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application is very long and unclear. The applicant lists many grounds of discrimination and numerous social areas. The respondents to the Application are Birchcliff Public School and the Toronto District School Board. The applicant attended Birchcliff Public School from kindergarten to grade 3, from 1960 to 1963.

3On February 27, 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 for many reasons. The two main reasons were the Application was filed late and it failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination allegedly committed by the Birchcliff Public School and the Toronto District School Board.

4The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding these issues. The applicant provided submissions in response to the NOID, but failed to articulate how the named respondents engaged in discrimination or why the Application was filed decades after the applicant attended Birchcliff Public School.

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 fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Code.

6The Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to allegations of discrimination against the respondents named in an Application. The applicant has failed to explain how these respondents have discriminated.

7Section 34(1) of the Code contains a mandatory limitation period which requires an applicant to file an Application within one year of the last incident upon which an application is based. Section 34(2) gives the Tribunal the discretion to allow an untimely application to proceed where the applicant has a good faith reason for the delay.

8From the information contained in the Application, it appears that the applicant attended Birchcliff Public School in the 1960s. The applicant has not provided any reasons for the delay in filing the Application in response to the NOID.

9As such, the Application is dismissed for delay and because the applicant has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination against the named respondents within the meaning of the Code.

Order

10For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.