HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
France Lachapelle
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Transportation
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Lachapelle v. Ministry of Transportation
1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination contrary to the Code with respect to goods, services and facilities because of record of offenses.
2On March 10, 2016 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that it did not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
3This Application relates to the fact that the applicant was imposed certain restrictions when she obtained an Ontario driver’s license because of a previous criminal offence in Quebec. The applicant explains that the legal issues in Quebec are concluded and that the Ministry should not impose any conditions on her driver’s license. The applicant also argues that the Ontario law should not prevail over the Quebec law. The applicant, who is employed by the Canadian forces, says that this has had a negative impact on her employment.
4The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to all allegations of general unfairness. In order for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of an Application, it must relate to a social area covered by the Code and to a prohibited ground of discrimination.
5The Tribunal may dismiss an Application if it is plain and obvious that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Services
6The Application asserts discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Pursuant to section 1 of the Code:
- 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, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.
7“Record of offenses” is not a prohibited ground of discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Therefore, there is no basis under the Code for the applicant to assert that she has been discriminated on this ground.
Employment
8I am uncertain whether the applicant is asserting in her submissions that this Application also relates to the social area of employment. However, it is admitted by the applicant that there is no employment relationship between the applicant and the Ministry of Transportation. Further, since the applicant works for a federal entity the Code, which is an Ontario provincial law, does not apply to any employment issues that she may have experienced. Therefore, it is plain and obvious that this Application does not relate to the social area of employment.
9Further, the Code states:
“record of offences” means a conviction for,
(a) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or
(b) an offence in respect of any provincial enactment; (“casier judiciaire”)
10In this case the applicant was convicted of a criminal offence but has not provided confirmation that she has received a pardon. Therefore she does not meet the statutory definition of “record of offences” for the purposes of the Code.
Order
11I am of the view, for the many reasons stated above that this Application should be dismissed on the basis that it is plain and obvious that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of April, 2016.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair