J.G. v. Nickel City Hockey Association, 2017 HRTO 1521

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

J.G. by their Litigation Guardian M.J.

Applicant

-and-

Nickel City Hockey Association and Guy Myre

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: November 20, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1521

Indexed as: J.G. v. Nickel City Hockey Association

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

J.G. by their Litigation Guardian M.J., Applicant

J. Robert LeBouthillier, Representative

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of age and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code").

2Specifically, the Application alleges that the applicant, along with his minor hockey teammates, was shown a presentation when he was 8 years old that was not age appropriate. When the applicant's grandfather made a complaint to the respondent organization, the allegation is that the applicant's ice time was reduced, he was subjected to abusive conduct and the applicant's grandfather was excluded from the games and from participation on the online webpage operated by the respondent organization. Subsequent requests for redress were not dealt with by the respondents to the satisfaction of the applicant's grandfather.

3On June 28, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID"), advising the applicant that 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.

4The applicant was directed to respond to the issues raised in the NOID by no later than July 28, 2017. The NOID advised the applicant that failure to do so may be considered an abandonment of the Application and dismissal might ensue.

5The Application was dismissed on August 14, 2017 (2017 HRTO 1043).

6Upon receipt of a Request for Reconsideration in which the applicant alleged he had not received the NOID, the Tribunal allowed the Reconsideration Request and directed the applicant to respond to the NOID by October 27, 2017 (2017 HRTO 1368).

7The applicant filed his submissions in response to the NOID, as directed, on October 24, 2017. The applicant's representative took the position that the link between the grounds selected and the events in question was clear in the Application documents and then proceeded to reiterate the allegations contained in his Application.

Analysis and Decision

8An 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.

9The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. To fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, an application must contain allegations that connect a respondent's conduct to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination.

10The submissions reiterate the age of the child and the view that an age inappropriate presentation was shown to all members of the minor hockey team. The Application and the applicant's submissions deal with allegations of conduct towards the applicant and his grandfather that is described as "abuse", "bullying" and "intimidation".

11However, the materials provided by the applicant fail to point to any connection between this treatment and any ground in the Code. The only link asserted is that the applicant was 8 years old and a young boy at the time that the presentation took place and when he is alleged to have experienced abusive conduct and reduced playing time.

12In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not conduct prohibited by the Code. Therefore, the Application does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

order

13For the above reasons, the Application is dismissed.