Wallace v. Toronto (City), 2017 HRTO 1361

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mike Wallace

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto and Lucky Boothe

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky

Date: October 16, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1361

Indexed as: Wallace v. Toronto (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mike Wallace, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application on April 11, 2017 alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondents had mistreated him in various ways during his employment, which ended on August 31, 2015.

2On July 20, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”), advising the applicant that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons:

(i) the Application was filed more than one year from the last incident of alleged discrimination and there was no “good faith” explanation for the delay;

(ii) the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination allegedly committed by the respondents; and

(iii) the Application failed to describe how the respondents’ conduct was discrimination on the basis of a conviction under the Criminal Code or provincial legislation.

3In his response the applicant did not address the issues raised in the NOID, but instead reiterated the allegations contained in his Application.

4An 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.

5For the following reasons, I find it plain and obvious that the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed.

Analysis

6The applicant alleges discrimination based on the ground of “record of offences.” The ground of record of offences is defined in the Code as a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or an offence in respect of any provincial enactment. The applicant has not alleged any conduct by the respondent that would constitute discrimination on the basis of a conviction for any of the types of offences covered by the ground of “record of offences”. See, for example, Gravino v. P.R. Maintenance, 2009 HRTO 516, and de Pelham v. Mytrak Health Systems, 2009 HRTO 172.

7Given this finding, I need not consider the other two issues raised in the NOID. I find it plain and obvious that the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed.

order

8The Application is dismissed.