Backovic v. Snyder, 2016 HRTO 495

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zoran Backovic

Applicant

-and-

Bronwyn Snyder

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: April 15, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 495

Indexed as: Backovic v Snyder

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Zoran Backovic, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on March 14, 2016 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against in respect of goods, services and facilities on the basis of place origin. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“Tribunal”) has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) to the applicant.

2The Tribunal sent a NOID dated March 30, 2016 to the applicant. The NOID stated that 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. 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.).

3The Tribunal requested that the applicant provide written submissions responding to the issues identified in the NOID within 30 days. On April 10, 2016 the Tribunal received the applicant’s submissions.

4The applicant appears to be alleging that the respondent, who is an employee of the Tribunal, has teamed with opposing legal counsel to make a dismissal of his Application against the Ontario Labour Relations Board happen. The respondent corresponded with the applicant by providing him with the Tribunal Practice Directions on Communicating with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and Representation before Social Justice Tribunals Ontario .

Analysis and Decision

5The applicant responded to the NOID. In his submissions, the applicant is alleging that the respondent has violated his human rights by creating a new fake rule that says that he must deliver his legal documents to the person who is respondent’s counsel in another Application that he has filed at the Tribunal.

6The applicant provided no submissions to further explain how the alleged unfairness he experienced is connected to his place of origin.

7The Tribunal may dismiss an application without providing an opportunity for an oral hearing if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. However, an application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

8To be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, an application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s behaviour to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in section 1 of the Code or demonstrate how the respondent’s behaviour amounts to a reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

9Section 8 of the Code states:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

10The Application does not allege any facts that make any link between the applicant’s claims and a Code ground. The applicant has made no allegation or provided any facts to support a claim that the alleged unfairness he experienced when the respondent wrote to him is connected to his place of origin.

11Based on the information before me, I find it plain and obvious that the allegations of discrimination, which are not linked to a Code ground, do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

12For these reasons I would dismiss this Application