Shaikh v. Whitby Mental Health Centre, 2009 HRTO 1356

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Junaid Shaikh

Applicant

-and-

Whitby Mental Health Centre, WMHC-FCRU Treatment Team, and Timothy Lipson

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: August 28, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1356

Indexed as: Shaikh v. Whitby Mental Health Centre

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on May 14, 2009 alleging discrimination in housing, contracts, and goods, services and facilities on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, creed and marital status contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On August 5, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it appeared the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination noted in the Application form. The applicant completed Question 7(d) of the Application form and indicated the date of the last event was in 2004. The Tribunal invited submissions from the applicant as to whether or not his Application satisfied the conditions of section 34 of the Code. The applicant provided such submissions by way of letter dated August 11, 2009.

BACKGROUND

3The applicant makes allegations against three respondents. The applicant alleges that Justice Timothy Lipson discriminated against him in 2002 when Justice Lipson found him to be not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on a charge of criminal harassment and failed to recognize his Islamic marriage. The applicant alleges that Whitby Mental Health Centre has denied him the right to visit his mosque and his family. Lastly, the applicant alleges that the WMHC-FCRU Treatment Team has denied him access to certain facilities and therapies and has vilified him at the Ontario Review Board.

DECISION

4Based on the information that the applicant has provided to the Tribunal, it appears that the subject matter of the allegations against Justice Lipson are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that 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 Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99; Christianson v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 HRTO 203; and Gibson v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 870.

5In any event, the Tribunal must dismiss the Application as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the matters raised by the applicant because of the delay in filing the Application. The Tribunal’s power to hear and determine human rights applications is based on the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims which are not within its statutory jurisdiction under the Code. Section 34 of the Code provides:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

6The applicant was given an opportunity to explain how the events alleged in his Application are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, other than his NCR detention which occurred seven years ago, the applicant has provided no information or details as to when the alleged incidents occurred. Without any further details about the events and their timing, as well as explanation for events that are outside the limitation periods under the Code, it is not possible to conclude that the delay was incurred in good faith.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application, and the Application is therefore dismissed.