HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Christianson
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Charles Walters, Susan Fullerton and Paul Bourque
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Christianson v. Ontario (Attorney General)
1This Application has been the subject of three earlier Interim Decisions. Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 100 denied the applicant’s request that the Application be expedited. In 2009 HRTO 778, I asked the applicant to provide submissions on the question of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised in the Application.
2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, asking for a time extension to allow him to complete his submissions. Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 911, granted the applicant an additional two weeks from the date of that Interim Decision to file his submissions. That Interim Decision was dated June 25, 2009. To date, the submissions requested in Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 778 have not been filed except for an email correcting a typographical error in the Request for Order During Proceedings.
3The Application was filed on December 9, 2008, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), and alleges discrimination by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee and in a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.
4As noted in Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 778, the applicant has commenced a number of court actions. He applied to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) asking for legal representation. The personal respondents are employees of PGT. Susan Fullerton, Regional Counsel for the PGT, who is one of the personal respondents, wrote to the applicant on October 1, 2008, and advised that if he wished to have PGT appointed as litigation guardian, a motion brought in court was required. The applicant filed a motion and the matter came before Justice Nolan on November 4, 2008. She issued an endorsement, dated November 27, 2008, finding that the Court had no jurisdiction to order the PGT to provide legal representation to the applicant and finding that there was no basis to direct the PGT to act as the applicant’s legal guardian because his case did not meet the legal test under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.
5It is clear from the Application that the applicant does not agree with Justice Nolan’s decision.
6In Christianson v. Attorney General (Ontario), 2009 HRTO 840, another case involving the same applicant, the Tribunal considered whether adjudicative decisions are “services” under the Code. That Decision referred to Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99, which held:
The content, reasons and result contained in a decision of a statutory decision-maker cannot be understood to be part of the “service” a statutory Tribunal is providing to the public. The decision is, therefore, not subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
7The Tribunal found that the same principle applies to decisions of the Court.
8In the present case, it is clear that the applicant does not agree with the decision of Justice Nolan. As with the earlier case, the allegations in the Application do not suggest prima facie discrimination.
9The decision of the Court does not constitute a “service” under the Code and it follows that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the Application.
10The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 20^th^ day of July, 2009.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair