Corcoran v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Peterborough, 2009 HRTO 1600

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Corcoran

Applicant

-and-

The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Peterborough, Nicola DeAngelis, Jean Amelia, Arthur Champagne, Huguette Keeler,

James Keeler, Gerald Lawless, Agnes Marchand, Hilda McPhee, Melvin McPhee,

Joan Mowat, Joseph O’Grady, Jack Vollering, and Reg Ward

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: October 2, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1600

Indexed as: Corcoran v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Peterborough

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 June 17, 2009. This Interim Decision provides certain directions regarding the processing of this matter.

BACKGROUND

2The Application arises out of the applicant’s removal from his role as an altar server at a church. Among other things, the applicant alleges that he was discriminated against in employment on the basis of his sexual orientation when he was removed as an altar server by Bishop De Angelis following a complaint by 12 parishioners. As a remedy, the applicant seeks a financial remedy (including a payment by each of the 12 parishioners to a charity of his choosing), restoration to the position of altar server, and various other remedies to promote compliance with the Code.

3The Application was filed against Bishop De Angelis, the Catholic Diocese of Peterborough (the “Diocese”), which appears to oversee the parish in question, and the 12 parishioners.

4One Response has been filed on behalf of the Bishop and the Diocese. In this Response, the Bishop and Diocese provide a “brief outline” to the substance of the applicant’s allegations, but state that further detail will not be provided until the “exemption issue” is resolved. With respect to the latter, the Bishop and Diocese argue that the applicant’s role as an altar server involves volunteering within the church and therefore is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In the alternative, they argue that the alleged conduct would be exempt based on section 24 of the Code (which sets out certain defences to employment discrimination).

5Separate responses have been filed by the 12 parishioners, all of whom are represented by the same counsel. A single narrative response has been filed on behalf of the parishioners. Among other things, these respondents argue that they have not breached any of the applicant’s rights under the Code as they are not the applicant’s employer nor were they in a position of power, control and responsibility with respect to the applicant and his “voluntary” position; their conduct is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and their conduct is exempted under section 18 of the Code (which sets out a defence to services discrimination).

6The applicant has not filed a Reply and the time for doing so has elapsed.

7All parties have agreed to mediation.

REQUEST FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS

8Prior to proceeding further with this Application, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to request further submissions on the issue of how the alleged conduct of the parishioners raises issues covered by the Code.

9The Tribunal does not have a general power to determine allegations of wrongdoing or unfairness on the basis of sexual orientation. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the provisions of the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships such as the provision of goods, services and facilities, housing, contractual relations and employment. The Code does not regulate relationships between individuals which do not have a basis in one of these social areas. The applicant needs to explain how, in his view, the allegations about the parishioners’ conduct in making a complaint to the Bishop, in threatening to go public with their concerns and by circulating petitions to fellow parishioners constitute discrimination by the parishioners “with respect to employment” or in respect to any other social area covered by the Code.

10Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant is directed to deliver to the respondents, and file with the Tribunal, written submissions addressing this issue. The respondents may reply to the applicant’s submissions by delivering to the applicant and filing their written submissions with the Tribunal within a week of receiving the applicant’s submissions.

11The Tribunal may decide the issue of its power to hear the Application as it relates to the parishioners based on the Application, the Responses and any written submissions received or may issue further case management directions.

12Further, the respondents Bishop De Angelis and the Diocese are directed to file a full Response to all issues raised in the Application. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure require respondents to file complete Responses prior to making any preliminary objections, including jurisdictional objections. There are limited exceptions to this general rule, outlined in Rule 8.2. In addition to those exceptions, a full Response is not necessary where it is alleged that a respondent falls under federal jurisdiction: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. None of the foregoing are applicable in this case.

13I am not seized of this matter.