Garandi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2009 HRTO 858

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Djoro Garandi Applicant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission and Peter Benesch Respondents

CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE decision

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: June 16, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 858 Indexed as: Garandi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)

APPEARANCES BY

Djoro Garandi, Applicant ) On his own behalf Ontario Human Rights Commisson and ) Sharon Ffolkes-Abrahams, Peter Benesch, Respondents ) Counsel

1This is an Application dated November 11, 2008 under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleging reprisal in employment. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") on June 14, 2008.

2The purpose of this Case Resolution Conference Decision is to address the respondents' request to dismiss this Application on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it.

3On December 20, 2000, the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission against his former employer and others alleging discrimination because of race and colour (the "Employment Complaint"). The Employment Complaint proceeded through the Commission's investigation process, and an investigation report was prepared dated November 22, 2002 recommending that the Employment Complaint not be referred to the Tribunal as referral was not warranted by the evidence. The investigation report was disclosed to the parties and they were afforded an opportunity to make submissions in response. By decision dated January 28, 2003, the Commission accepted the recommendation in the investigation report and concluded that the evidence did not warrant referral of the Employment Complaint to the Tribunal.

4The Commission's decision was disclosed to the applicant and he was advised that he had the right to request reconsideration. The applicant did so, and the Commission issued a further decision dated February 18, 2004 upholding its original decision.

5On June 14, 2008, the applicant filed the complaint underlying this Application against the Commission and the investigating officer alleging discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour and ethnic origin. At the Case Resolution Conference, the applicant was questioned by me as to the basis upon which he was raising allegations against the Commission and the investigating officer. The applicant responded that his complaint was about the investigation report prepared by the investigating officer and the decisions made by the Commission, and nothing else. In voluminous materials filed with the Tribunal, the applicant takes the position that he provided sufficient evidence to support his allegations of racial discrimination against his former employer and that the Commission's decision that there was insufficient evidence is wrong. No other allegation is raised by the applicant regarding the manner in which he was treated by the Commission or by the investigating officer.

6This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative body. That jurisdiction belongs to the Divisional Court. As stated in Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99 at para. 12:

The application of the Code and the powers of the Tribunal are specifically enumerated in the Code. Pursuant to s. 1, every person has the right to equal treatment "with respect to services, goods and facilities". While a statutory decision-making process is a "service" for the purposes of the Code, there are elements of that process that are not encompassed by the Code's meaning of "service", such as the decision itself. The content, reasons and result contained in a decision of a statutory decision-maker cannot be understood to be part of the "service" a statutory Tribunal is providing to the public. The decision is, therefore, not subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

7In the result, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this Application, and the Application is therefore dismissed.