Gallant v. George Brown College, 2016 HRTO 1597

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bradley Gallant

Applicant

-and-

George Brown College

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: December 12, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1597

Indexed as: Gallant v. George Brown College

APPEARANCES

Bradley Gallant, Applicant

Self-represented

George Brown College, Respondent

Patty Murray, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of ancestry and race contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it does not raise a social area covered by the Code.

2The Application concerns a broadcast of a National Football League game that was aired by Sportsnet network. The game was a playoff game and one of the teams playing in the game was the Washington Redskins. The respondent purchased ad time during the telecast of the game promoting itself as a community college.

3The applicant identifies as a Qalipu Mi’kmaq. The applicant alleges that the fact that the respondent bought ad time during the broadcast of a football game in which one of the teams was named the Washington Redskins resulted in discrimination in the provision of services against him contrary to the Code.

4The respondent asserts, among other things, that there was no service relationship between the respondent and the applicant and therefore the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

5By Case Assessment Direction dated June 24, 2016, the Tribunal directed that a Preliminary Hearing by conference call be scheduled to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that the Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

6The preliminary hearing was held by teleconference on November 24, 2016.

analysis and decision

7Section 1 of the Code states:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status and disability.

8As the Tribunal explained in Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 765 at para. 21, the Tribunal must determine whether the allegations in an application implicates a right to equal treatment on the grounds listed in the Code and in relation to the social areas of employment, accommodation, or goods services and facilities. If an application does not involve one of these areas, the Code does not apply to the situation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the allegations.

9The Tribunal has stated that section 1 of the Code must be interpreted broadly and purposively, including the definition of “service”. However, the definition of “services” is not boundless. For instance, the Tribunal has held that there must be some sort of service relationship between the applicant and a respondent in order to constitute a “service” and that mere interaction between them is not enough to establish discrimination and a breach of section 1 of the Code. See Padayachee v. Peel Children’s Aid Society, 2010 HRTO 709 at para. 12.

10In my view, there is no service relationship between the applicant and the respondent. The respondent is a community college. The “service” that it provides to its students, broadly speaking, is the provision of educational courses and programmes that lead to the granting of diplomas or degrees. The applicant is not enrolled as a student with the respondent. The fact that the applicant’s son or that the applicant himself may at some time become a student at the respondent or that the respondent is a publically funded institution does not provide a basis on which the Tribunal can ground its jurisdiction.

11The applicant does not assert that the content of the respondent’s commercial advertisement itself was discrimination. The applicant is a member of the public who was apparently offended by the content of a particular program broadcast by Sportsnet. The only nexus that this event had with the respondent is that the respondent bought commercial advertising space during the time period when this allegedly offensive content was aired.

12In the absence of a service relationship between the applicant and the respondent, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application.

13Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.