Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Herve Belso

Applicant

-and-

York Region Police

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: June 4, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 757

Indexed as: Belso v. York Region Police

1This Application made under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleges discrimination on the basis of family status and marital status against the following respondents:

• Stacey Lee Belso
• Superior Court of Justice, Justice Perkins and Justice Rogers
• Legal Aid Ontario and Elizabeth Champlain
• York Region Police and Armand Labarge
• York Region School Board and Sharon List
• Howard Stern, Rayson and Associates and Diana Solomon
• Family Responsibility Office and Emily Francescutti

The applicant also filed a Request for a Tribunal-ordered Inquiry (the “Request”).

2The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in employment, goods, services and facilities, accommodation, contracts and membership in a vocational association on the basis of certain protected grounds listed in the Code. It does not have a general power to inquire into all relationships and all difficulties that may occur in those relationships.

3The Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Jurisdiction dated March 20, 2009 which required the applicant to make submissions explaining how the allegations against each of the respondents relate to the social areas and prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Code. The letter also asked the applicant to clarify whether he intended to name the York Region School Board as a respondent.

4The applicant’s submissions have been received and reviewed. The Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to proceed with the Application with respect to any of the respondents except the York Region Police, for the reasons set out below. The style of cause has been amended accordingly.

STACY LEE BELSO

5Ms. Belso is the applicant's wife, or former wife (it is not clear whether the applicant and Ms. Belso are divorced or not). Certain allegations were made by the applicant against her arising out of various Family Court proceedings and the disposition of the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

6As noted above, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is based on the provisions of the Code. The personal relationship between the applicant and Ms. Belso is not covered by the Code, and therefore the Tribunal does not have the power to decide the allegations against Ms. Belso.

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, JUSTICE ROGERS AND JUSTICE PERKINS

7The applicant names the Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) as a respondent based on the fact that the Court has allegedly issued Orders affecting the matrimonial property of the applicant and Ms. Belso. Justice Perkins allegedly made the Order or Orders which permitted the payment of certain monies out of the applicant's share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home. Justice Rogers allegedly refused to permit the release of certain assets of the applicant to allow the applicant to honour his support obligations.

8The Court is an unincorporated body and lacks the capacity to be sued, unless there is legislation that expressly or by necessary implication allows such action. The applicant has not provided any such authority. Judges of the Superior Court of Justice are immune from liability by reason of the common law doctrine of judicial immunity. Judges of the Ontario Court of Justice are immune from liability by reason of section 82 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

9Moreover, the Tribunal has found that adjudicative decisions of statutory bodies are not services within the meaning of the Code: see Baird v. Workplace Safety and Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99. 13. I am satisfied the same analysis is applicable to decisions of the Court and the makers of those decisions. In the circumstances, I find the allegations against the Court and the two Justices are not within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

LEGAL AID ONTARIO AND ELIZABETH CHAMPLAIN

10The applicant was denied legal aid assistance by Legal Aid Ontario. A close review of the Application, documents and submissions fails to disclose any connection between the denial of legal aid assistance and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

11Ms. Champlain is the Area Director at North York of Legal Aid Ontario and was the representative of that organization to refuse to issue a legal aid certificate to the applicant.

12There are no separate allegations against Ms. Champlain in the applicant’s submissions, Application or documents which provide a nexus between the denial of services and a prohibited ground under the Code.

YORK REGION POLICE AND ARMAND LABERGE

13After the applicant’s share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home were dispersed without his consent, although it appears that the basis for the dispersal was a Court Order, the applicant went to the York Region Police and asked them to investigate whether or not a criminal offence had occurred. His request was apparently refused on the basis that the situation was civil, not criminal, in nature.

14While the Application identifies family status and marital status as the alleged grounds of discrimination, his submissions make clear his claim against the York Region Police is that they refused to provide services to him on the basis of his sex or gender.

15Police services are “services” within the meaning of the Code. I am satisfied these allegations are within the Tribunal’s power to consider. In the circumstances the Application will be served on the respondent York Region Police and the Police are directed to file a Response to the Application in accordance with the Rules.

16Mr. Labarge is the Chief of Police of the York Region Police. The applicant attached to his Application a letter that he wrote to Mr. Labarge dated November 25, 2008, complaining about the fact that the police would not investigate the applicant’s family law situation. There is no indication of what response, if any, Mr. Labarge made to this letter.

17Although I am satisfied the claim against the Police is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider, I am not satisfied the applicant has shown any connection between the conduct of Mr. Labarge and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

YORK REGION SCHOOL BOARD AND SHARON LIST

18Despite having been asked to clarify the point, the applicant’s submissions do not clearly indicate whether or not he intends to proceed against the York Region School Board as a respondent to this Application. The Board was named as a respondent in the Application, with Sharon List as the contact person. However, in his submissions the applicant indicates he intended Ms. List to be a respondent to the Application.

19I have closely reviewed all the applicant’s materials. I am not satisfied the applicant has shown any connection between the allegations made against the School Board and Ms. List and a prohibited ground in the Code.

HOWARD STERN, DIANA SOLOMON AND RAYSON AND ASSOCIATES

20Mr. Stern appears to have served as the real estate lawyer who handled the sale of the matrimonial home. In one piece of correspondence he identifies himself as Ms. Belso's lawyer. Ms. Solomon and Rayson and Associates acted on behalf of Ms. Belso in the family court proceedings.

21Neither lawyer or the law firm provided a service to the applicant within the meaning of the Code. Accordingly, their relationship is not covered by the provisions of the Code or subject to review by the Tribunal.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE AND EMILY FRANCESCUTTI

22The Family Responsibility Office is in charge of the enforcement of family support orders made by the courts. It had a number of interactions with the applicant regarding the need for payment of his support obligations. Ms. Francescutti is a representative of the Family Responsibility Office with whom the applicant dealt in connection with his family support obligations.

23In reviewing the allegations made by the applicant in his submissions, Application and documents, there is no apparent nexus between those allegations and a prohibited ground in the Code.

REQUEST FOR TRIBUNAL-ORDERED INQUIRY

24The applicant seeks a Tribunal Inquiry into certain matters pertaining to his matrimonial dispute with his wife or former wife, Ms. Belso. Nothing in the Request relates to the York Region Police.

25In view of the dismissal of the Application against all respondents except the York Region Police, there is no basis for the Request.

ORDER

26The Tribunal makes the following Order:

• the Application is dismissed as against all respondents except the York Region Police; and,
• the Request for a Tribunal Inquiry is dismissed.