Kentebe v. Haggerty, 2009 HRTO 1163

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Kentebe

Applicant

-and-

Jennifer Haggerty, Justice S. Bondy and Ontario Court of

Justice, Chatham

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: July 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1163

Indexed as: Kentebe v. Haggerty

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 7, 2009 alleging discrimination on the basis of race and naming Jennifer Haggerty as a respondent. The applicant indicated that Ms. Haggerty was a person with whom he had a personal relationship and dated. The Application did not indicate an area of alleged discrimination.

2On February 13, 2009, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant, indicating that his Application was not complete and asking him to provide further information. On March 5, 2009, the applicant provided the Tribunal with further completed forms, indicating that he was alleging discrimination in the area of goods, services, and facilities, in relation to proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice. On April 2 and June 1, 2009, the applicant provided the Tribunal with further completed forms, naming Justice S. Bondy and Ontario Court of Justice, Chatham, as respondents.

3On June 8, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Notice stated, in part, that the “Tribunal has held on a number of occasions that ‘services’ within the meaning of the Code does not include the outcome or decision resulting from adjudications by other statutory bodies, including the Courts” and directed the applicant to various Tribunal decisions.

4The applicant was given 30 days to file submissions, however, no submissions were filed.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in employment, goods, services and facilities, accommodation, contracts and membership in a vocational association on the basis of certain protected grounds listed in the Code. It does not have a general power to inquire into all relationships and all difficulties that may occur in those relationships.

6Based on the face of the Application and accompanying documents, it appears that the applicant’s concerns pertain to family law issues and related legal proceedings concerning Ms. Haggerty and the applicant. The personal relationship between the applicant and Ms. Haggerty is not covered by the Code and, therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to decide the allegations against Ms. Haggerty

7There are also allegations in the Application relating to family law proceedings involving the applicant and Ms. Haggerty in the Ontario Court of Justice. These allegations relate to comments made by Justice S. Bondy during the course of judicial proceedings and to the outcome of those proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice. The applicant alleges that he was not allowed to speak, ordered to provide personal information, and told to be responsible and pay child support.

8The Tribunal has held that the content, reasons and result contained in a decision or order are not a “service” within the meaning of the Code. (See Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 99, Christianson v. Ontario (IPC) 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration refused, 2009 HRTO 424. In Dann v. Wallace, 2009 HRTO 392, the Tribunal similarly held that an adjudicator’s oral statements about her findings during the hearing, are an element of the decision-making process that is not a “service” within the meaning of the Code. The Tribunal has also applied these principles to decisions of the courts. (See Christianson v. Attorney General (Ontario), 2009 HRTO 840).

9In my view, the allegations in the Application relating to the proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice and the comments of Justice S. Bondy during those proceedings do not fall within the area of “services” within the meaning of the Code.

10Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.