Fenkam v. Le Collège La Cité, 2016 HRTO 245

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christian Fenkam

Applicant

-and-

Le Collège La Cité and Danielle Paris

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: February 24, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 245

Indexed as: Fenkam v. Le Collège La Cité

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christian Fenkam, Applicant

Self-represented

Le Collège La Cité and Danielle Paris, Respondents

Mélissa Lacroix, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for an order requiring the organizational respondent to disclose to him the contact information for four of his former classmates who he sought to add as respondents to his Application.

2In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). He named as respondents the school where he was a student, one of his professors and four of his classmates (Cynthia Lamarche, Tina Minault, Michael Barré and Geneviève Romain). The applicant provided the organizational respondent’s address as the contact information for his four classmates. The respondent advised the Tribunal and the applicant that it could not accept delivery of the Application on behalf of the applicant’s classmates.

3Following this, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which he asked the Tribunal to order the organizational respondent to disclose contact information for the four classmates so that the Application could be delivered to them.

4The respondents did not oppose the applicant’s request but they noted that it did not appear that an Application against his classmates fell within one of the social areas covered by the Code.

findings

5The applicant’s request is denied. The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate relationships between individuals, or to inquire into all claims of unfairness or misbehaviour. It only has the jurisdiction to hear applications that allege violations of the Code. The applicant has alleged that the respondents discriminated against him in the social area of employment. There are no facts alleged in the Application that could support a claim that the applicant’s classmates discriminated against him with respect to employment. Likewise, there are no facts alleged in the Application that could support a claim that the applicant’s classmates discriminated against him with respect to the provision of services or any other social area covered by the Code. The Tribunal has found that the Code does not cover allegations of discrimination or harassment made against fellow classmates: see McLennon v. York University, 2012 HRTO 10; Mehedi v. George Brown College, 2010 HRTO 1486; Tohidy v. Mckenzie, 2009 HRTO 2264; Theisen v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1781.

ORDER

6The following personal respondents are removed as respondents to the Application: Cynthia Lamarche, Tina Minault, Michael Barré and Geneviève Romain. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly. Since these four individuals are no longer parties to this proceeding, the Tribunal declines to order the respondents to disclose their contact contact information.

7I am not seized of this matter.