Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Maria Rots Applicant
-and-
Elizabeth Fry Society and John Gerald Rots Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: January 22, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 95 Indexed as: Rots v. Elizabeth Fry Society
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 8, 2014.
2On December 10, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide. The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than January 23, 2015. The NOID advised the applicant that failure to respond to the NOID may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.
3The NOID also stated:
a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by either respondent.
your completed Application, as filed against John Gerald Rots [the personal respondent], does not appear to raise an issue the HRTO has the jurisdiction (power) to resolve as follows:
the Application does not appear to allege discrimination with respect to any of the social areas identified in the Code (services, goods and facilities; accommodation (housing); contracts; employment; membership in vocational associations). See Noor v. Midyanta Community Services, 2012 HRTO 375, MF v. Child and Family Services of Timmins and District, 2009 HRTO 979.
4In response to the NOID, the applicant advised she was being harassed by the respondent, the Elizabeth Fry Society (“the corporate respondent”), through a worker there named Michelle.
5With respect to the personal respondent, the applicant states she received a letter from the Crown Attorney's office in Kingston that she needs to sue her brother and therefore it is clear that he infringed her rights.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is delivered to the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
Application Against the Personal Respondent
7Having considered the applicant’s Application and her subsequent filing, I find that the applicant has failed to make any allegations of Code-related discrimination against the personal respondent. The applicant has not alleged any facts that make any link between her claims against him and a Code ground. The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness (see Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17) nor does it have the broad jurisdiction of the courts, which can, for example, deal with general claims of contractual breaches or tortious wrongdoing.
8I find it plain and obvious that the allegations of discrimination against the personal respondent are not linked to a [Code](https://