Varshavska v. Varshavskiy, 2009 HRTO 2190

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Roksolyana Varshavska Applicant

-and-

Yaroslav Varshavskiy Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: December 16, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2190 Indexed as: Varshavska v. Varshavskiy

1In this Application 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 on the basis of sex in the area of goods, services and facilities. The case arises out of the separation and divorce of the parties.

2On November 6, 2009, the Tribunal requested that the applicant provide written submissions related to the issue of whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction, as it appeared that the Application did not allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code.

3Those submissions have been received and this Decision will decide the issue of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this case.

4The Application contains a series of allegations commencing with the separation of the applicant and the respondent in October, 2005. The allegations generally are that the respondent has taken a variety of legal and allegedly illegal steps against the applicant relating to custody of their children, child support and various legal proceedings before the courts which have resulted in a number of legal dispositions involving the applicant.

5The Tribunal does not have a general jurisdiction to deal with all issues of unfairness and potentially illegal conduct. Rather, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is based on the provisions of the Code, which provide protection against discrimination in five “social areas”, one of which is goods, services and facilities (section 1 of the Code).

6The relationship between spouses or ex-spouses has not been recognized as being a “service” within the meaning of section 1 of the Code. In Belso v. York Region Police 2009 HRTO 757, the Tribunal found that the personal relationship between the applicant and respondent spouse was not a relationship that is covered by the Code.

7The Tribunal finds that this Application does not engage the social area of goods, services and facilities and therefore the Tribunal does not have the power to decide the allegations against the respondent. The Application is therefore dismissed.