Garisto v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2016 HRTO 230

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mario Garisto

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 23, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 230

Indexed as: Garisto v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mario Garisto, Applicant

Self-represented

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in services on the basis of age. Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondent’s policy of allowing children 12 and under to travel for free discriminates against him. The applicant advises that he was born in 1983 and so must pay a fare when he uses the respondent’s services.

2On November 7, 2015, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the allegations in the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide). The applicant filed brief submissions in response.

3Section 10(1) of the Code states: “age” means an age that is 18 years or more.” On the basis of this definition, the applicant’s allegation about preferential treatment for children is not a matter the Tribunal can consider.

4The applicant’s submissions in response to the NOID do not address the issue of whether the allegation in his Application is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but instead state that the respondent’s policy of providing discounts for university students and seniors also amounts to age discrimination. He did not make a request to amend his Application and so it is not, strictly speaking, necessary to address these additional categories. I would note, however, that the category of “university student” is not specifically linked to age. Moreover, s. 15 of the Code states:

A right under Part I to non-discrimination because of age is not infringed where an age of sixty-five years or over is a requirement, qualification or consideration for preferential treatment.

5The applicant has failed to establish that the policy at issue is prohibited by the Code. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.