HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Villella
Applicant
-and-
Corporation of the City of Brampton and Susan Bauman
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Villella v. Brampton (City)
1The applicant filed an Application on August 28, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in the areas of goods, services and facilities, employment and contracts on the basis of record of offences.
2On September 28, 2009, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which asked for submissions from the applicant on the issue of its jurisdiction and how the Application raises matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the Application appeared to describe the behaviour of an opposing party in a court matter.
3The applicant responded to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss on October 28, 2009. He states that he requested but was not given disclosure, in respect of a Provincial Offences Act prosecution against his son. He states that at no time was he given disclosure, despite an authorization from his son.
4The applicant’s dealings appear to have been largely with City of Brampton court administration staff. He alleges that despite the requests for disclosure, he received no disclosure, and that he also received no notice of trial and that his son was convicted in absentia. He states that court officials apologized and reversed the conviction, after he pursued the matter. However, it occurred twice more. Each time, he followed up, and again he was given a new trial date. However, he states that at no time was he given disclosure, despite the authorization from his son.
5The applicant also objects to various actions in the conduct of the provincial offence hearing, by Susan Bauman, who appears to have been the prosecutor.
6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Morin v. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58, Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect to the application: Rule 13.5. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside those areas or grounds set out in the Code.
7It appears to me that at least part of this Application has to do with clerical functions in the prosecutor's office. It is not plain and obvious to me that all of the allegations are beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
8My finding here does not remove the possibility that at least some of the Application may raise matters that are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide. The applicant has been directed by the Registrar to the decision in Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390. In addition, all parties to this Application should be aware of the recent decision in Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered 2009 HRTO 2180 which addresses, among other issues, the responsibility of public adjudicative bodies to ensure that their facilities and processes are accessible and barrier-free.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of December, 2009.
“Signed By”
___________________________________
Judith Keene
Vice-chair