HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Yvonne Fulton-Bell
Applicant
-and-
Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society,
Hugh Nicholson, Jennifer Smith and Jennifer Hill
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman
Indexed as: Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
) Yvonne Fulton-Bell, Applicant ) Self represented ) ) Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society ) Catherine Peters, and Hugh Nicholson, Respondents ) Counsel Jennifer Smith and Jennifer Hill, ) Caroline Jones, Respondents ) Counsel )
1This is an Application filed June 26, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The purpose of this Decision is to address the preliminary issue raised by the respondents that this Application should be dismissed as being outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
3The applicant alleges that the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (the “CAS”) and the personal respondents discriminated against her on the grounds of ancestry, colour, creed, disability, ethnic origin, family status, place of origin, and race in the provision of services.
4The personal respondent, Hugh Nicholson is the local director of the CAS. The personal respondents Jennifer Hill and Jennifer Smith were, at the material time, employed by the CAS as Child Protection Case Managers.
5The applicant first contacted the CAS with concerns about her great-nephew in 2002. In 2006, she became aware of court ordered affidavits prepared by Ms. Hill and Ms. Smith in respect of a custody dispute concerning that child. She alleges the information in these affidavits is offensive and discriminatory. The applicant complained to Mr. Nicholson. He responded in a letter which she claims is also discriminatory. She further alleges that CAS’s determination not to investigate her concerns raised in 2002 was discriminatory.
Decision
6The Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to dealing with disputes that properly fall under the Code. The applicant alleges that she experienced discrimination in the provision of goods and services contrary to s. 1 of the Code, which provides:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.
7The various contexts in which the Tribunal has found the area of “services” to be engaged suggest the necessity for some sort of service relationship, as opposed to mere interaction, between the parties. See Cooper, supra.
8Neither the applicant nor the respondents were a party to the family law dispute. In complying with a judicial order, Ms. Hill and Ms. Smith were not engaged in the provision of a service to the applicant.
9Further, the applicant was not at any time material to her Application in receipt of service from any of the respondents. The child who had been a client of the CAS may have received services from CAS through Ms. Hill or Ms. Smith. Under those circumstances, however, any services that the CAS would have provided, would be to and for this child and his parents or guardians, not to or for the applicant. CAS was not providing a service to the applicant. See Sweezey v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1296.
10Because the respondents were not providing a service to the applicant there is no Code protected relationship between the parties on which the Application can be founded. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to proceed with this Application and the Application is dimissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of October, 2009.
‘‘Signed by”
Judith Hinchman
Member