HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Predie

Applicant

-and-

Crown Attorney’s Office of Simcoe, Anne-Marie Puusaari, Barry Keogh and Adam Morris

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: June 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 921

Indexed as: Predie v. Crown Attorney’s Office of Simcoe

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Daniel Predie, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Crown Attorney’s Office of Simcoe and ) Jeremy Glick, Counsel Anne-Marie Puusaari,, Respondents )

Barry Keogh, Respondent ) Craig R. Lawrence, Counsel

Adam Morris, Respondent ) H. Reginald Watson, ) Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying human rights complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on June 6, 2008 and abandoned upon filing this Application with the Tribunal.

2This Application alleges discrimination on the basis of marital status, sex, and family status against the following respondents:

1. Justice of the Peace Anne-Marie Puusaari;

2. Crown Attorney’s Office of Simcoe;

3. Barry Keogh; and

4. Constable Adam Morris.

3The respondents request the Application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

4All parties made submissions: these have been received and reviewed. The Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction to proceed with the Application with respect to any of the respondents.

Allegations related to the Release Order

5On September 19, 2007, the applicant was charged with a number of offences. He was remanded into custody. On September 24, 2007, he appeared before Justice of the Peace Anne-Marie Puusaari in the Ontario Court of Justice who ordered the applicant’s release on a recognizance from custody (“Release Order”). Duty Crown assigned to bail court that day consented to the applicant’s release and made submissions in respect to the conditions of that release.

6The applicant alleges that the Justice of the Peace in ordering the terms of his release and the Duty Crown counsel who spoke to the conditions of his release from custody discriminated against him as a single parent and family member.

[7] The Release Order is a decision of the Court. The Tribunal has found that adjudicative decisions of statutory bodies, including the Courts, are not services within the meaning of the Code: see Baird v. Workplace Safety and Appeals Tribunal, [2009 HRTO 99](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/99); Belso v. York Region Police, [2009 HRTO 757](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/757). The Tribunal is not an appellate body and the applicant has recourse to an appeal process if he wishes to challenge the decision of the Court. In the circumstances, I find the allegations with respect to Justice of the Peace Anne-Marie Puusaari and the Crown Attorney’s office are not within the Tribunal’s power to decide.

8Mr. Keogh is the Principal of the elementary school attended by the applicant’s child. The applicant alleges that Mr. Keogh has prevented him from being involved in his child’s education.

9The respondent argues that he is required to act in accordance with the Release Order that precludes the applicant from communicating or associating with his son. Therefore, the respondent argues he must take direction on Jeffrey’s educational needs only from his mother. The allegations respecting this respondent also relate solely to the conditions of his Release Order and, as discussed above, are not matters the Tribunal has the power to review.

Allegations against Constable Morris

10The applicant alleges Constable Morris made comments during the investigation at the police station on September 19, 2007 that resulted in charges being laid against the applicant and ultimately in the hearing where the Release Order was issued. The applicant specifically alleges Constable Morris stated he was going to advise the Crown that the applicant should stop seeing his child. The applicant stated this remark was “sadistic and discriminatory”.

11Constable Morris argues that the remedies sought in the Application all deal with the Release Order conditions which are not subject to review by the Tribunal. He adopts the arguments of the other respondents and asks that the Application be dismissed against him for lack of jurisdiction.

12Police services are “services” within the meaning of the Code and thus within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider. In this case, however, the applicant has not explained how Constable Morris’s statement is connected to differential treatment or discrimination on the basis of his relationship with his child. Moreover, the terms of the Release Order were set by the presiding justice of the peace not Constable Morris. They cannot be characterised as services provided by the police. I agree with this respondent that the allegations against Constable Morris are in effect challenges to the terms of the Release Order and, as such, not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

ORDER

13The Tribunal orders that the Application is dismissed.