Christianson v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 778

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Charles Walters, Susan Fullerton and Paul Bourque

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 5, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 778

Indexed as: Christianson v. Ontario (Attorney General)

1This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s Request that the Application be dismissed on the grounds that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matters raised in the Application. The Application was filed on December 9, 2008 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”), and alleges discrimination by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee and in a decision of the Superior Court of Justice. An earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 100, denied the applicant’s Request that the Application be expedited.

2The applicant has commenced a number of court actions. He applied to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) asking for legal representation. The personal respondents are employees of PGT. Susan Fullerton, Regional Counsel for the PGT, who is one of the personal respondents, wrote to the applicant on October 1, 2008 and advised that if he wished to have PGT appointed as litigation guardian, a motion brought in court was required. The applicant filed a motion and the matter came before Justice Nolan on November 4, 2008. She issued an endorsement, dated November 27, 2008, finding that the Court had no jurisdiction to order the PGT to provide legal representation to the applicant and finding that there was no basis to direct the PGT to act as the applicant’s legal guardian because his case did not meet the legal test under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

3In his Application to this Tribunal, the applicant explains why he does not agree with Justice Nolan’s factual findings and legal analysis.

4The respondents submit that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the Application. The respondents assert that the applicant is attempting to use the Application to re-litigate the issues that were dealt with by Justice Nolan. The respondents submit that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to review decisions made by the courts. The respondents argue that decisions of judges are not “services” and so cannot be reviewed under the Code and that members of the judiciary are immune from suits for acts or omissions allegedly done in the course of their duties.

5A hearing date of July 2, 2009 has been set to deal with the Application. I agree with the respondents that the question of whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to deal with the Application should be resolved before the merits of the Application are considered. This question can be dealt with on the basis of written submissions. The applicant is directed to file any submissions on the question of whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to deal with the Application within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.

6It is not necessary for the respondents to file any additional information at this time. A decision about whether to proceed with the hearing on July 2, 2009 and what issues may be dealt with if the matter proceeds, will be made following receipt of the applicant’s submissions or after two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision if no submissions are received.