HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sean Gibson
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General (Family Court Division) and Penny Jones
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Sean Gibson
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General (Family Court Division) and Ellen Murray
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Sean Gibson
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General (Family Court Division) and Debra Paulseth
Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: Gibson v. Ontario (Attorney General)
1The applicant filed three related Applications with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on February 11, 2009. In the Applications, the applicant alleges discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of family status. More specifically, he alleges that three judges of the Family Court ordered him to make child support payments in excess of what is reasonable or fair. He also alleges that these judges treated him with “complete disregard for equality and justice”.
2On May 11, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”). On May 25, 2009, the applicant filed written submissions in response to the Notice.
3The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Applications.
ANALYSIS
4The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is derived from the Code and is limited to the powers conferred upon it by that statute.
5Section 1 of the Code states:
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.
6In this case, because the applicant alleges discrimination in the provision of services, the Tribunal must determine whether the subject of the allegations (the decisions or orders of the Family Court) constitute a “service” within the meaning of the Code. If they do not, the allegations contained in the Applications are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Applications will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1.
7The Tribunal has held that the content, reasons and result contained in a decision or order are not a “service” within the meaning of the Code. (See Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 99, Christianson v. Ontario (IPC), 2009 HRTO 203 and Bulimaibau v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 413. For this reason, I find that the Code does not give the Tribunal jurisdiction to review or vary decisions of the Family Court.
8As I have concluded that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Applications because Family Court decisions or orders are not a “service” under the Code, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the principle of judicial immunity would apply.
9The Applications are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 11^th^ day