D F-W as represented by his litigation guardian L F-W v. Durham Catholic District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1377

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

D F-W as represented by his litigation guardian L F-W

Applicant

-and-

Durham Catholic District School Board and Durham Student Transportation Services

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 25, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1377

Indexed as: D F-W as represented by his litigation guardian L F-W v. Durham Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

D F-W as represented by his litigation guardian L F-W, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1In her Application, the applicant’s litigation guardian alleged that the respondents discriminated against the applicant because of his age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). She is dissatisfied with the approach the respondents take to the order in which children are picked up for school and dropped off after school. She alleges this approach is discriminatory because of age because the system is unfair and would not be used with adults because they would protest the unfairness of the system.

2The school uses what it refers to as a “balanced approach” in which the children on the bus the longest in the morning should be on the bus the least amount of time in the afternoon. The system results in the applicant having to spend more time on the bus in the afternoon than his litigation guardian believes he should have to since he lives just 5 minutes from the school. Instead of dropping the applicant off first, the respondents drive past the applicant’s street to then drive 30 minutes away to drop off other children before returning to drop off the applicant.

3On August 31, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the 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. The NOID noted that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless the unfairness is connected to one or more grounds protected under the Code. The NOID advised the applicant’s litigation guardian that she had to provide submissions in response to the NOID.

4In her submissions, the applicant’s litigation guardian submitted that the respondents’ system is arbitrary and favours some students over others. She also questioned whether it was the socio-economic background of some students that made them more important or the colour of their skin. However, I note that the Application alleges discrimination based on age and no other ground.

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 age discrimination allegations against the respondents fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6As stated in the NOID, the Tribunal only has jurisdiction over the anti-discrimination protections set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over general unfairness or arbitrariness that is unconnected to the Code. It is plain and obvious that the allegations the applicant has made against the respondents have no connection to the Code. The applicant has not alleged any differential treatment based on age. Instead, it is plain and obvious that she is dissatisfied with what she believes to be the arbitrariness and unfairness of the respondents’ approach to bussing. That is not a claim over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction.

Order

7For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed.