Yuli Zhang v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario, 2016 HRTO 267

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yuli Zhang

Applicant

-and-

Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: February 29, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 267 Indexed as: Zhang v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Yuli Zhang, Applicant

Changchun Xing, Representative

Introduction

1This Application filed on December 14, 2015 alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicant's allegations are based on a complaint filed with the respondent on October 30, 2014, in which she advised the respondent that an insurance company had not paid certain benefits in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule ("SABS"). The complaint further alleged misleading conduct by the insurance company's adjuster.

3In response to the applicant's complaint the respondent sent her a letter, dated December 16, 2014, closing her complaint file. She alleges the respondent did this without investigating the insurance company, and that this was discriminatory.

4On January 14, 2016 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") indicating it appears the Application is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction 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 respondent(s). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless the unfairness is connected, in whole or in part, to one of the grounds specifically set out in Part I of the Code (e.g. race, disability, sex, etc.); see, for example, Forde v. Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389.

5The applicant was directed to provide submissions by no later than February 16, 2016, which she did.

6The applicant's submissions state that she has the right to claim accident benefits, and that the denial of those constitutes discrimination against her.

analysis and decision

7At 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 claims against the respondent are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

8The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over violations of rights with respect to the social areas and the grounds set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness. The applicant provides no facts which link the actions of the respondent to a breach of the Code ground identified in the Application.

9I find that it is plain and obvious that the allegations the applicant has made have no connection to the Code.

order

10The Application is dismissed.