Curtis v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2009 HRTO 2008

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Curtis

Applicant

-and-

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Patricia Grenier, Kaye Joachim, Chris Bentley, Julian Fantino and Ontario Provincial Police, Caledon East Detachment

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: November 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2008

Indexed as: Curtis v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment and in goods, services and facilities on the basis of ancestry, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, association with a person identified by a ground and reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2In his Application, the applicant indicated that he had filed a Complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) based on the same facts as this Application and attached a copy of a Complaint dated January 3, 2008, alleging discrimination in goods and services on the basis of ancestry, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, sexual solicitation, marital status, family status, record of offences and reprisal. The applicant also attached a copy of a Commission decision not to deal with his Complaint, dated June 25, 2008, which states, in part, as follows:

1. The complainant alleges that he was denied a gun license; was not successful in his appeal regarding the denial of a gun license due to false allegations by the police; experienced government harassment, massive criminal collusion concerning religious based hate crimes against him and ongoing public endangerment, death threats, ongoing violence and malicious persecution; was subjected to false and misleading court transcripts in his hearings; was accused of criminal behaviour and a conspiracy to murder for profit; and was accused of being a member of Hell’s Angels and has had to live undercover and under the protection of several churches.

2. The Commission is of the view that the complaint contains no allegations against the respondents which, if proven, could amount to discrimination on the Code grounds cited.

3. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish a reasonable basis upon which it can be maintained.

3On July 17, 2008, the applicant filed an Application under s. 53(3) of the Code which was dismissed by the Tribunal, 2008 HRTO 303; reconsideration refused 2009 HRTO 93, as the applicant did not have a “continued” complaint before the Commission when he filed the s. 53(3) Application.

4On June 10, 2009 the applicant filed the current Application under s. 34 of the Code. On September 18, 2009, the Tribunal provided the applicant with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, indicating that it appears the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

• the allegations against the respondents Bentley, Fantino and the OPP appear to be the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of your January 2008 complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. That complaint was dismissed by the Commission in its decision made June 25, 2008. As such, this aspect of your Application appears to be barred by s.53(8) of the Code.
• if the application against these respondents is not barred by the provisions of s.53(8) it does not appear to raise any allegations which, if proven, could amount to discrimination on the grounds you have identified;
• the allegations against the respondents Joachim, Grenier and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario all are with respect to the Tribunal’s adjudicative processes and its decisions dismissing your application and refusing to reconsider that decision. The Tribunal has held on a number of occasions that “services” within the meaning of the Code does not include the outcome or decision resulting from adjudications. You are directed to the Tribunal’s decisions in Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 99, and Christianson v. Ontario (IPC), 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration refused 2009 HRTO 424.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions responding to the above points and explaining why he believes the Application is in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and he did so.

DECISION

5Section 53(8) of the Code provides as follows:

No application, other than an application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.

6Under section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over an application where the allegations contained in the application constituted the subject-matter, or substantially the same subject-matter, of a complaint previously filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code.

7As against Julian Fantino and the Ontario Provincial Police, Caledon East Division, this Application duplicates allegations set out in his previous Commission Complaint against the Ontario Provincial Police, including allegations of religious-based hate crimes, criminal collusion and false claims, as summarized in the Commission’s decision referred to above at paragraph 2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Application, as against those respondents, is barred under section 53(8), as its subject-matter is substantially the same as the subject-matter of the Complaint that the applicant previously filed with the Commission.

8With respect to the respondent Chris Bentley, the Application does not make any allegations which, if proven, could amount to discrimination on the grounds identified. Accordingly, the Application as against Chris Bentley is dismissed as it is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

9The remaining allegations as against the respondents Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Grenier and Joachim appear to relate to the applicant’s dissatisfaction with the decisions of Joachim, the Alternate Chair of the Tribunal, referred to in paragraph 3, above. The applicant also alleges that the cancellation of a mediation concerning his s. 53(3) Application was discriminatory. His allegations against Grenier, the Tribunal’s Registrar-Transition, appear to relate solely to her correspondence communicating Tribunal decisions to him.

10The Tribunal has held in a number of decisions that the adjudicative decisions of statutory tribunals and agencies are not a “service” pursuant to the Code and challenges that relate exclusively to the decision-making of statutory tribunals and agencies are not, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (see, for example: Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99, and Christianson v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration denied, 2009 HRTO 424). In particular, in Baird, supra, the Tribunal held that the content, reasons and result contained in a decision of a statutory decision-maker are not “services” under the Code.

11In Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1595, the Tribunal held as follows:

Adjudicative decision-makers must make decisions independently based upon the law, and the law generally does not impose civil liability on adjudicators for the decisions they make: see Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada 2000 CanLII 5748 (ON C.A.), (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 329 (C.A.); aff’d 2001 SCC 80, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562. The Code and the Tribunal rules include various provisions dealing with the existence of other proceedings about the same matter and the circumstances in which an Application will be deferred or dismissed: see especially ss. 45, 45.1, s. 34(11) of the Code. This scheme, in my view, is inconsistent with the imposition of Code liability against a statutory decision-maker for the content of a decision.

12The allegations in the Application as against the Tribunal, Grenier and Joachim relate exclusively to the content of the Tribunal’s adjudicative decisions. The cancellation of the mediation was a direct result of an adjudicative decision determining that the s. 53(3) Application was not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which was upheld on reconsideration. As these allegations are about the content and result of adjudicative decisions, the Application as against the Tribunal, Patricia Grenier and Kaye Joachim is also dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

ORDER

13The Application is dismissed.