HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Patrick James Applicant
-and-
City of Kingston City Hall Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: August 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1134 Indexed as: James v. Kingston (City)
1This Application, filed on June 21, 2016, alleges discrimination with respect to contracts because of marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application has not been delivered to the respondent.
2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application and narrative setting out the incidents or alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless the unfairness is connected, in whole or in part, to one of the grounds specifically set out in the Code (e.g. race, disability, sex).
3The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on August 12, 2016.
decision
4An application will only be dismissed by the Tribunal at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, and Belcastro v. Metrolinx Go Transit, 2012 HRTO 2121.
5For the reasons set out below, I have determined that it is plain and obvious that the Application makes no allegations of discrimination protected by the Code.
6In the narrative of the Application, the applicant identifies no acts of differential treatment by the respondent related to the alleged ground of marital status or any other ground enumerated in the Code. The applicant indicates that he is a tourist-seasonal outdoors caricature/portrait artist. The applicant moved to Kingston in November 2014. He alleges that he approached the respondent’s license/permit department to identify the permit that would allow him to work outdoors and it appeared that there were no permits that applied to his working conditions. The applicant alleges that he began a dialogue with the respondent to find a solution to his problem. He alleges that there were several meetings and exchanges of correspondence between January 2015 and December 2015. In the spring of 2015, the applicant alleges that he was offered a modified contract/vendor permit at the cost of the existing vendor permit but the permit precluded him from working in the park on 20 prime-time summer days.
7In his response to the NOID, the applicant maintains that he erred in his Application when he identified the category for the alleged discrimination. He indicates that he remembers choosing “gender bias” when he should have chosen “contract” discrimination. The applicant alleges that he did not receive timely responses from the respondent to his requests and communications and he received no explanations for the prohibition from working during the 20 prime-time summer days. The applicant describes the respondent’s actions as a pattern of discrimination and unprofessional misconduct and rebuffs.
8The applicant’s submission in response to the NOID did not address the issues raised in the NOID. While the relationship between the applicant and the respondent may have been a contractual relationship resulting from the modified contract/vendor permit that was granted to him, the applicant fails to show that clauses in the modified contract/vendor permit discriminate against him based on the grounds of discrimination he has cited, marital status or gender. In addition, the applicant fails to connect the respondent’s alleged acts to the grounds of discrimination he has cited. In short there are no facts set out in the Application that relate to the alleged grounds of discrimination either of marital status or of gender.
9For these reasons I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application raises no issues under the Code and must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of August, 2016.
“Signed by”
Josée Bouchard Vice-chair