Kiltz v. Canadian Mental Health Association, 2017 HRTO 1120

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Phillip Kiltz

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Mental Health Association

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: August 30, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1120

Indexed as: Kiltz v. Canadian Mental Health Association

APPEARANCES

Phillip Kiltz, Applicant

Self-represented

Respondent

Respondent

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities.

2The applicant states that he attended at the respondent’s offices in Kirkland Lake to seek assistance in obtaining medication. The applicant states that one of the respondent’s personnel offered to assist him in having his ODSP file transferred, but offered no assistance with respect to his medication. The respondent did arrange for a taxi to take him to a medical appointment and then to home, but this was not handled well and he almost missed his medical appointment. Following the appointment, the applicant left a message with the staff member of the respondent that he met with and asked her to refer him to a psychologist, but she did not return his call.

3On July 14, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents. 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. In the NOID, the Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the NOID in writing by August 14, 2017.

4The applicant filed submissions on July 31, 2017. In his submissions, the applicant stated that he sought the respondent’s assistance in being able to see a psychiatrist, but was never given the opportunity to do so. The applicant states that his main complaint is that services he sought were not rendered and that he believes that “something was in play”, i.e., that he was treated differently because of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Analysis and Decision

5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

6As noted in the NOID, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with allegations of general unfairness. In this case the applicant alleges that he received poor service from the respondent’s personnel. However, the applicant provided no basis, other than speculation, that this alleged behaviour was connected to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. Accordingly, I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application does not come within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7The Application is dismissed.