HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Zaneefa Rooplall Applicant
-and-
Trillium Health Centre Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Rooplall v. Trillium Health Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Zaneefa Rooplall, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In the Application, the applicant claimed that the respondent violated the Code when she was employed by the respondent.
3On February 23, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application because it appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the NOID indicated that the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The NOID also indicated that 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 set out in Part 1 of the Code.
4In the NOID, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the issue identified in the NOID. The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal. However she did not identify any acts of discrimination relating to any ground protected under the Code.
analysis and decision
5At 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 claim is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as the Application does not identify any acts of alleged discrimination based on any ground protected under the Code.
6In her submissions the applicant indicated that she has an intellectual disability – “because of being smarter than most people, it was affecting my job because people did not want to admit to their mistakes at work”. In my view, “being smarter than most people” is not a ground protected under the Code. She also indicated that “race” was part of the problem but she failed to describe how the respondent’s behaviour was related to discrimination on the basis of race.
7The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over cases of general unfairness that is unconnected to a ground protected under the Code. In her response to the NOID, the applicant did not identify any acts that would constitute discrimination on the basis of disability or any other ground protected under the Code.
order
8For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of April, 2016.
“signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair