E.P. v. Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region, 2009 HRTO 591

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

E.P.

Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: May 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 591

Indexed as: E.P. v. Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region

1In a decision dated May 1, 2009, Justice E. Martin of the Ontario Court of Justice made an order that the applicant’s son be made a Ward of the Crown and committed to the care and custody of the respondent Children’s Aid Society.

2The Application alleges discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability, creed, family status and receipt of public assistance occasioned by: (i) the decision made by Justice Martin and (ii) the nature of the care the applicant’s son has received while in the custody of the respondent, including alleged refusal to let him practice his religion and decisions about medical treatment. The applicant asks that the Tribunal return her son to her care and seeks orders for future compliance with the Code.

3The Tribunal does not have a general power to investigate allegations of wrongdoing or review the decisions of courts or tribunals. It can only determine whether there has been discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds in the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, (the “Code”). In relation to goods, services and facilities, s. 1 of the Code provides as follows:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

4In my view, there is a serious question as to whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction (power) to address the allegations made by the applicant in this Application. Accordingly, the Tribunal seeks submissions from the applicant to explain how her Application raises matters that the Tribunal has the power to decide.

5First, with regard to Justice Martin’s decision, there is a significant question about whether the order of Justice Martin could constitute discrimination in goods, services or facilities by the respondent, the Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region. The applicant should explain how she asserts that Justice Martin’s decision could amount to discrimination by the Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region with respect to services.

6Second, there is a significant question about whether the treatment of the child, of whom the applicant does not have custody, can constitute a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code. The applicant should explain how she alleges that the respondent’s actions while it has custody of the child could amount to discrimination against her.

7Third, the applicant has alleged discrimination on the basis of receipt of public assistance. This ground does not apply to goods, services and facilities but only to housing. If the applicant wishes to maintain her reliance on this ground, she should explain how the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this allegation.

8The applicant shall deliver her submissions to the respondent’s counsel and file them with the Tribunal by May 21, 2009. The respondent need not make submissions unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. Following receipt of the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal may determine whether it has jurisdiction over this matter and if it does not, the Application shall be dismissed.

9To summarize, the applicant shall have until May 21, 2009 to deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal submissions on the following issues:

(1) How she asserts that Justice Martin’s decision could amount to discrimination against her with respect to services by the Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region.

(2) How she alleges that the respondent’s actions with regard to the child could amount to discrimination against her under the Code.

(3) On what basis she alleges that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with allegations of discrimination in services on the basis of receipt of public assistance.

(4) Whether there is any other matter raised in the Application that the Tribunal has the power (jurisdiction) to decide.

10The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office. Pages 2 – 3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to her.

11I am not seized.