Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Nick Succi
Applicant
-and-
The Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General – Court Services Division
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
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 Decision deals with the respondent’s request that the Application be dismissed.
2In an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 23, the Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this Application. The applicant was also specifically requested to address how this particular respondent discriminated against him in the provision of a good, service or facility.
3The applicant filed submissions on March 20, 2009. In his submissions, the applicant states that he believes he was treated less favourably than his former spouse by a Family Court Judge presiding over his pre-trial conference involving support issues, and by the lawyers representing his former spouse and himself at that pre-trial. He believes the unequal treatment was because he was a man and his former spouse was a woman.
4There is no doubt that the applicant received services from his lawyer, but his Application is not against her. While it is questionable that the opposing lawyer provided “services” to the applicant, his Application is not against her either. Similarly, his Application is not against the judge involved in the pre-hearing conference, and it is therefore not necessary to review principles of judicial immunity. The Application is against a government entity that the applicant alleges should oversee conduct of judges and lawyers in the context of the justice system to ensure that it is not skewed against men. The applicant submits that,
The Ministry of the Attorney General should make sure that everybody is treated the same under the Human Rights Code and the services provided by lawyers and judges in the Ontario Court system are equal and not based on gender.
The specific remedies that the applicant seeks include apologies from his former spouse and her counsel, and from “the representative from the Justice Department,” and a financial remedy which would reimburse him for the support he agreed to pay his former spouse.
5In bringing this Application against the Ministry of the Attorney General, the applicant must show some basis for the contention that the respondent provides a service under the Code that includes, in effect, ensuring that judges and lawyers comply with the Code. His submissions fail to demonstrate this. Also, the applicant’s submissions do not address the respondent’s position that it is not responsible for, nor does it have jurisdiction over lawyers who are overseen by the Law Society of Upper Canada, or over members of the judiciary who must answer to the Canadian Judicial Council. With respect to the support order made by the Family Court judge, the remedy requested by the applicant amounts to a request to reverse the order. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review or vary an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
6This Application is therefore dismissed as it does not raise issues within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Dated at Toronto, this 6^th^ day of April, 2009.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair