Theisen v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1781

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Theisen Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Sean Cunningham, Steve Brady and Nicole Holmes Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: October 27, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1781 Indexed as: Theisen v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Written submissions by

Richard Theisen ) on his own behalf

1This is an Application filed on May 27, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2It appears that several events led the applicant to make this Application, including allegedly abusive behaviour of fellow students at a college program and interactions with the courts and the Crown Attorney’s office on a matter relating to criminal charges. In filling out the Application, the applicant has checked off the parts of the form indicating discrimination in the area of employment, goods, services and facilities and membership in a vocational association.

3In the narrative, the applicant alleges that he was subject to harassment and ill treatment during his time at college and despite his complaints, no investigation took place. He also alleges that he was charged and convicted of an offence relating to events arising out of his troubled relationships with fellow students at the college. He appears to take issue with the process that led to his conviction and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal. His allegations centre on the actions of a Crown Attorney, the Court of Appeal and fellow college students.

4On June 3, 2009, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as it appeared that the Application concerned events that had taken place more than a year prior to filing. The Notice of Intent to Dismiss sought the applicant’s submissions on the issue of delay.

5Subsequently, an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1058, was issued asking the applicant to provide submissions on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear this Application. The applicant was asked to explain how the alleged actions of the respondents amount to discrimination in the provision of a good, service or facility, or in relation to membership in a vocational association.

6The purpose of this Decision is to address the issues of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear this Application and delay in filing.

Jurisdiction

7The Tribunal does not have a general power to evaluate relationships between individuals, nor does it act as an appellate body for criminal matters. It hears applications that allege violations of the Code.

8Under s. 1, 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.

9In employment, s. 5(1) of the Code prohibits discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

10The Code also provides that a person has a right to equal treatment with respect to membership in any trade union, trade or occupational association or self-governing profession and prohibits discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

11The Application concerns events that took place while the applicant was a student in a college in Ontario in the late 1990’s and his dealings with the Crown Attorney’s office and the courts which flowed from his interactions with one of his classmates, who is also one of the named personal respondents.

12The Application names as respondents the Superior Court of Justice, the Crown Attorney’s Office and three personal respondents who were fellow students.

13The applicant argues that the justice system provides a service and that the decisions made by the Courts in his criminal matter did not properly take his disability into account. The Tribunal has found that adjudicative decisions of statutory bodies,

14including the Courts, are not services within the meaning of the Code: see Baird v. Workplace Safety and Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99; Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757. The Tribunal is not an appellate body and the applicant has recourse to an appeal process if he wishes to challenge the decisions of the Court. In the circumstances, I find the allegations with respect to decisions of the Court are not within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

15The applicant also argues that the Crown Attorney acting as the prosecutor in his criminal matter discriminated against him in the area of goods, services and facilities and employment. He suggests that he was deceived and threatened into entering a plea and argues that he should have been told by the Crown Attorney that he may become less employable as a result of his plea. I find that the applicant has not shown that his interactions with the Office of the Crown Attorney placed him in a service relationship with that body. As a result, the allegations regarding the Office of the Crown Attorney are not within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

16In his submissions, the applicant clarifies that the allegation against the three personal respondents who were fellow students of the applicant is that they harassed him in the area of employment, goods, services and facilities and membership in a vocational association

17The applicant does not identify a ground under the Code with respect to his allegation about harassment by his fellow students. While it appears that the relationship between the applicant and the three personal respondents may have been a difficult one, in order for the Tribunal to consider his allegations, the applicant must show a connection between the events leading to the Application and grounds under the Code as the Code does not protect against unfair treatment or even harassment, unless it is on the basis of a Code ground.

18On the material before me, there is no basis for a claim against the personal respondents on the basis of an employment relationship. Nor is there any basis for a claim based on the provision of goods, services and facilities.

19I turn to the assertion that the personal respondents discriminated against the applicant in the area of membership in a vocation association. The applicant alleges that he and the personal respondents were fellow members of a student chapter of a non-profit organization called the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The applicant implies they may have excluded him from activities, thereby making him feel as though he did not belong and so reduced his chances of becoming employed. He suggests that the personal respondents may have held positions of responsibility within the student chapter but indicates he cannot provide any confirmation of this allegation.

20As I have indicated above, the applicant has made no claim that any differential treatment of him by the personal respondents was based on a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code. This is sufficient in itself to lead to a finding that the Application cannot proceed against these respondents. In addition, there is no apparent basis for a claim that section 6 of the Code applies to these circumstances. Section 6 of the Code affords every person the right to equal treatment with respect to membership in any trade union, trade or occupational association or self-governing profession. Although the applicant appears to have been a participating member of the student chapter of the group mentioned in the above paragraph, there is no apparent connection between the personal respondents and the group, other than as fellow members and a speculative assertion about their role in the organization. There is no suggestion that he was denied membership or that the actions of the personal respondents go beyond an allegation of social exclusion.

21The allegations concerning the personal respondents in essence are about perceived social exclusion, rather than discrimination under the Code. They do not, raise issues covered by the Code and I find they are not within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

Delay

22The Application concerns events are alleged to have taken place between 1995 and 2000. The applicant acknowledges that there has been a delay in filing but argues that he suffers from a number of disabling conditions that have contributed to the delay. He has submitted a letter from a treating physician that confirms that he suffers from the certain medical conditions and supports the applicant’s contention that the medical conditions contributed to the delay.

23Given my findings on the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear this Application, it is not necessary for me to address the issue of delay.

24This Application is dismissed.