Fuller v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2016 HRTO 1141

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Clayton Fuller Applicant

-and-

Legal Aid Ontario and Killian May Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: August 29, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1141 Indexed as: Fuller v. Legal Aid Ontario

1This Application, filed on under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect goods, services and facilities because of disability and reprisal.

2The applicant alleges that the respondents stated in public and to his family members that he is mentally ill, which he characterizes as slander. The applicant alleges that the individual respondent, who was representing the applicant in a legal proceeding, threatened to ensure he was imprisoned if the applicant fired him. The applicant states that he did not receive proper legal representation in a legal proceeding, which was a reprisal for a complaint to the Law Society and for dismissing the individual respondent.

3On April 4, 2016, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) that advised him that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because and because 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 the respondents. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions in response to the NOID by May 4, 2016.

4On April 21, 2016, the applicant filed several documents, apparently in response to the NOID. These documents include correspondence from the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) regarding complaints he filed with the LSUC about several lawyers and correspondence from Legal Aid Ontario regarding his request for a change of solicitor.

Analysis and Decision

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

6The Application, on its face, contains allegations of unfair treatment by the respondents, but does not identify acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The correspondence submitted by the applicant again indicates that he was unhappy with the legal representation he received, but does not include allegations of Code violations or provide any basis for concluding that the respondents’ actions may have been discriminatory. In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7The Application is dismissed.