Christianson v. Attorney General (Ontario), 2009 HRTO 16

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 Attorney General

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General and Superior Court of Justice Southwest Region (Ontario)

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: January 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 16

Indexed as: Christianson v. Attorney General (Ontario)

1In these Applications filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability as a result of certain statements and Orders made by Judges and Justices of the Peace in the course of court proceedings involving the applicant. In file number 2008-00336-I, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision 2008 HRTO 268, in which the parties were directed to provide submissions on the following preliminary issues:

(a) whether complaints about the conduct of the judiciary are properly the subject matter of proceedings under the Code;

(b) whether the adjudication of legal disputes by the courts is “services” within the meaning of section 1 of the Code;

(c) whether this Tribunal file should be dealt with together with the applicant's Application in file number 2008-00179-I.

2In file number 2008-00179-I, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision 2008 HRTO 263 directing the parties to provide submissions on the following preliminary issues:

(a) whether complaints about the conduct of the judiciary are properly the subject matter of proceedings under the Code;

(b) whether the adjudication of legal disputes by the courts is “services” within the meaning of section 1 of the Code;

(c) whether the Superior Court of Justice Southwest Region (Ontario) is improperly named in the Application as it is not a suable entity.

3Submissions were received by the Tribunal from the parties in both files. With the exception of the issue set out in paragraph 1(c) above, the Tribunal is not able to decide the preliminary issues above on the basis of the submissions received. The Registrar will schedule a one-day oral hearing to address these preliminary issues in both files.

4The parties are directed to deliver to the other and to file with the Tribunal the following materials by no later than 14 days prior to the date set for the oral hearing:

(a) a statement of any further facts to be relied upon beyond those facts contained in the Application, Response, Reply and the submissions already filed with the Tribunal;

(b) any documents to be relied upon;

(c) any case law to be relied upon.

5Regarding the issue in paragraph 1(c) above, the two files raise similar facts and virtually identical legal issues, and accordingly, the Tribunal orders that these two files be dealt with and heard together.

6I am not seized of this matter.