Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Nick Succi Applicant
-and-
The Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General – Court Services Division Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: March 4, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 239 Indexed as: Succi v. Ontario (Attorney General)
1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal pursuant to s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), on November 5, 2008 alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of sex. This Interim Decision deals with the respondent's request that the Application be dismissed early. In addition, it amends the style of cause to properly name the respondent.
2The applicant believes that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his sex in the course of a Family Court application to vary spousal support. The culminating incident was a pre-trial conference in which he claims his financial circumstances were scrutinized carefully while his former spouse's financial information was not. The pre-trial resolved the Family Court dispute.
3The respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the Minutes of Settlement between the applicant and his former spouse, incorporated into the Court's order, appropriately dealt with the substance of this Application. The respondent also argues that the applicant does not raise any particular facts that support a claim of gender discrimination. The respondent denies any responsibility for or over the conduct of counsel, and asserts judicial immunity with respect to the allegations against the judge in the Family Court proceeding.
4In his Reply the applicant states that, while unaware that judges are immune from human rights claims:
I am not filing gender discrimination against court staff such as bailiffs and clerks. I am filing gender discrimination against the family law judicial system in Ontario. If the Ministry of the Attorney General is not the right institution to file a human rights complaint in this matter please advise me who or what is responsible for this.
5The Tribunal cannot give the applicant advice on how to frame his Application, nor does it have a general power to inquire into broad complaints of systemic unfairness in the family law justice system. Its jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social areas, (such as goods, services or facilities), based on prohibited grounds.
6It is not clear that the allegations in this Application raise issues that are within the Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine. The Tribunal therefore requests written submissions from the applicant to address the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the Application. The applicant's submissions should explain how his Application raises matters over which the Tribunal has the power to decide, and how this particular respondent discriminated against him in the provision of a good, service or facility. The applicant must deliver his submissions to the respondent and file them with the Tribunal within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The respondent is not required to respond to these submissions unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.
7The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant's Guide, available on the Tribunal's website, www.hrto.ca, or from the Registrar. Pages 2 – 3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to him, including support that may be available through the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of March, 2009.
"Signed By"
________________________
Mary Truemner Vice-chair