S.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2009 HRTO 884

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

S.B.

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Carolyn Schiller

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: June 18, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 884

Indexed as: S.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

1This is an Application filed on January 30, 2009, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The style of cause has been amended to reflect the correct spelling of the respondents’ names as provided in the Response.

2The Application appears to allege discrimination and/or harassment in the area of goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race. Most of the allegations in the Application relate to the applicant’s dealings with the respondents in relation to his child who was made a Ward of the Crown but appear to be lacking in clarity. The main allegations appear to be as follows: that the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”) and its officers are “betraying us” with respect to proceedings related to the applicant’s child; that after “burying” the applicant’s complaints against CAST, the personal respondent and the foster parent of the applicant’s child “framed” the applicant “in their bogus sexual allegations case”; that CAST misused the “Crown Ward in raping” the applicant’s child; that the personal respondent did not allow the applicant’s child to visit the applicant’s residence from December 5, 2005 to January 6, 2007; and, that the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) did not listen to the applicant’s appeal due to racism. The Application also referred to CAST officers’ “hate messages” and harassment but no particulars were provided.

3In their Response, the respondents submit that the Application fails to disclose any facts that would support a finding that the respondents have violated the Code and request that the Application be dismissed summarily for failing to disclose a prima facie violation of the Code. They also request that the Application be dismissed in whole pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code as various other proceedings have appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application, including a motion for leave to commence a Status Review Application in the Ontario Court of Justice, a complaint to CFSRB, and a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council.

4The applicant filed a Reply which focuses for the most part on the sexual assault allegations concerning the child and the respondents’ handling of those allegations.

DECISION

5The Application includes allegations against the CFSRB, however, the CFSRB is not named as a respondent in the Application. In any event, 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. As such, the Tribunal does not have the power to determine the allegations in the Application concerning CFSRB.

6With respect to the remaining allegations in the Application, the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to schedule a one day hearing to hear submissions from the parties with respect to two preliminary issues.

7First, the Application alleges discrimination against the applicant in the area of goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race. While the Application raises serious matters, it is not clear how the allegations in the Application, against the named respondents, relate to discrimination against the applicant on the basis of race, within the meaning of the Code. The Tribunal, therefore, requires the applicant to make submissions explaining how the allegations against each of the respondents, if assumed to be true, could establish a violation of the Code, resulting in discrimination against the applicant. The respondents will have an opportunity to respond.

8Second, the Tribunal will also hear submissions from the parties with respect to the respondents’ request that the Tribunal apply section 45.1 of the Code in the circumstances. Section 45.1 provides:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

9The issue raised by the respondents is whether the Application should be dismissed under section 45.1 because the Ontario Court of Justice, the CFSRB, and/or the Canadian Judicial Council have appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

10The Registrar will schedule a one day hearing with the parties to hear submissions on the two issues identified above.

11If any party wishes to rely on case law or other supporting material at the hearing, they are directed to deliver this material to each other, and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled.

12The applicant should note that if the Tribunal determines that the facts of the Application, even if true, could not establish a violation of the Code, the Application will be dismissed. The 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 the applicant.

13I am not seized of this matter.