HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Vincent Lotto
Applicant
-and-
Algoma District Medical Group and Douglas Brooks
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Lotto v. Algoma District Medical Group
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Vincent Lotto, Applicant
Self-represented
1This is an Application filed on June 19, 2017 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of reprisal or threat of reprisal.
2The applicant alleges that the individual respondent, who is a medical doctor, accused him of stealing a medical file and refused to treat the applicant. The applicant also alleges that the individual respondent made slanderous comments about the applicant that have harmed his reputation.
3On August 1, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) that advised him that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because of delay, since the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination was April 26, 2016. The Tribunal further advised the applicant 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 also advised the applicant the facts set out in the Application do not appear to support his allegation that he was subject to a reprisal within the meaning of the section 8 of the Code and the case law interpreting it. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions in response to the NOID by August 31, 2017.
4The applicant responded to the NOID on August 30, 2017 by facsimile. The applicant submitted that he initially filed his Application in February 2017 and received confirmation from the Tribunal. The applicant submitted that the individual respondent again refused him treatment in July 2017. In August 2017, the applicant learned that the individual respondent did not file an accident report on his behalf, which the applicant alleges cost him benefits from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. The applicant submitted that the individual respondent made slanderous comments about him in a room full of patients on April 26, 2016. The applicant states that he filed a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons in August 2017.
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. The applicant is correct that he filed an application in February 2017, Tribunal File Number 2017-27182-I. However, the Tribunal closed this file on April 21, 2017 because the applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s directions to complete the application. I need not determine whether these circumstances amount to a good faith explanation for the apparent delay in filing this Application because it is plain and obvious that the Application concerns general allegations of unfairness. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness, unless the unfairness is connected, at least in part, to a prohibited ground of discrimination. See Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389. The applicant did not assert any facts that could establish such a connection. To prove a reprisal under section 8 of the Code, an applicant must show that the respondent retaliated or threatened to retaliate against the applicant because he attempted to claim his human rights. The applicant stated that he complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons about the individual respondent, which is a complaint about the medical services provided by the applicant. Such a complaint does not amount to an attempt to enforce his human rights. The applicant also did not identify any act of retaliation or threat of retaliation the respondent made against the applicant for asserting his rights under the Code. In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application does not raise issues within the Tribunal’s power to decide.
Order
6The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of September, 2017.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair