Dioba v. Ontario (Government Services), 2009 HRTO 913

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nacon Dioba

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Government Services, Office of the Registrar General,

Judith Hartman, and Shelly Dolph

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: June 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 913

Indexed as: Dioba v. Ontario (Government Services)

APPEARANCES

Nacon Dioba, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of ) Ontario as represented by the ) James Stebbings, Counsel Ministry of Government Services, ) Office of the Registrar General, ) Judith Hartman and Shelly Dolph, ) Respondents )

1This is an Application filed October 30, 2008, alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). A hearing into the matter was held on May 19, 2009 in Toronto.

2The applicant claims his right to equal treatment was violated when the respondents failed to cancel his October 5, 2007 Change of Name application. He also claims that the way the respondents treated him and responded to his complaints and inquiries violated his rights under the Code.

3For the reasons that follow, I am unable to find that the respondents have violated the applicant’s rights. As a result, the Application is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

4The Office of the Registrar General (“ORG”) is the Ontario Government agency responsible for receiving and processing Change of Name applications from members of the public. The respondent Judith Hartman is the Director and Deputy Registrar of the ORG. The respondent Shelly Dolph is the Manager of Specialty Services at the ORG. Specialty Services is the department within the ORG responsible for Change of Name applications.

5On or about October 5, 2007, the applicant submitted a Change of Name application to the ORG. By registered letter dated October 17, 2007, the applicant requested cancellation of his application.

6Between 2004 and 2007, the applicant made approximately 15 Change of Name applications. In each instance, shortly after the application was filed, he requested the application be cancelled. In each case, except in relation to the October 5, 2007 application, the ORG cancelled the application and returned the documentation to the applicant. In the case of the October 5, 2007 application, the application was processed and a legal change of name certificate was issued to the applicant on or about November 27, 2007.

7On December 10, 2007 the applicant sent an email message to Ms. Dolph through the Ministry of Government Services (MGS) web feedback form. The message stated that the Change of Name application was processed in error. The applicant explained that he had sent a letter requesting cancellation of the application. He requested the change of name be cancelled and the documentation returned to him. The applicant sent 2 follow up emails on December 13 and 17, 2007.

8Ms. Dolph testified that she first received notice of the applicant’s email request on December 13, 2007. At that point she made inquiries within her department about whether the October 17, 2007 letter had been received. She then left a voice mail for the applicant asking for the Canada Post tracking number. The applicant sent that information by email on December 19, 2007.

9Ms. Dolph explained that immediately after the Christmas vacation she followed up with the ORG mail distribution centre as well as staff in her department. After investigating, she concluded that the letter had in fact been received by the ORG distribution centre and delivered to the Specialty Services department. However, she was unable to determine what happened to the letter. She testified the letter has never been found.

10The applicant sent a letter to the Minister of Government Services on January 7, 2008, as well as correspondence to the Premier seeking resolution to his concerns that the Change of Name application was processed “against his will.”

11By letter dated February 6, 2008, the respondent Judith Hartman replied to the applicant. The letter explained that once a change of name has been processed, it cannot be cancelled administratively. Ms. Hartman informed the applicant that only a Court could reverse a registered change of name certificate. Alternatively, she advised that the applicant could submit a new application to change his name back to his original name.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

12Upon review of the evidence, I find that the failure of the respondent ORG to cancel the October 5, 2007 Change of Name application did not constitute a violation of the Code.

13I am satisfied with the explanation provided by Ms. Dolph that the applicant’s October 17, 2007 request to cancel his application never came to her attention, or to the attention of her staff. Ms. Dolph testified that Specialty Services receives approximately 60-100 Change of Name applications each week.

14The applicant presented no direct evidence, nor any other evidence, which might support an inference that the failure to cancel his application was related to his race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin or age. His claim of discrimination on the ground of disability was based on an argument that Ms. Dolph, or her staff perceived him to have a mental disability, because of his past applications for Change of Name. He argued that they were frustrated and processed the October 5, 2007 application, notwithstanding he had requested it be cancelled.

15The evidence demonstrated that in each of the 15 applications the applicant filed prior to his October 5, 2007 application, the respondent ORG accepted his request to cancel the application without challenge. The evidence establishes that after the October 5, 2007 application, the applicant made Change of Name applications and then sought to cancel them. The respondent ORG accepted the cancellation requests. While I appreciate the applicant was, and is distressed that his Change of Name was processed, I am satisfied that Ms. Dolph is being truthful when she testified the cancellation request was misplaced, and never came to her, or her staff’s attention.

16I heard significant evidence on the issue of how the Ministry, Ms. Dolph and Ms. Hartman handled and responded to the applicant’s concerns and complaints about his October 5, 2007 Change of Name application. The applicant alleges that the respondents were not responsive. The respondents argue that they responded in a timely and appropriate way.

17In my view, I need not determine this aspect of the applicant’s claim. Nothing in the evidence suggests that the applicant ever raised any concern with the respondents that the failure to cancel his Change of Name application was related to the Code or a ground of discrimination under the Code.

18The Tribunal has no general power to inquire into the provision of government services, or whether government agencies or staff are providing timely or responsive service. The Tribunal’s authority is limited to determining allegations of differential treatment on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in the Code. There are other avenues of redress for individuals who believe that government agencies have failed to provide services in a timely and responsive way.

19For all of the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed.