Katherine Jaconello v. Thomas Unger, 2010 HRTO 1251

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Katherine Jaconello Applicant

-and-

Thomas Unger Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: June 2, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1251 Indexed as: Jaconello v. Unger

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in services on the basis of creed. This Decision addresses the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the Application.

2The Application arises out of comments allegedly made by the respondent during the investigation of a complaint made about the respondent to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the "College") and the subsequent proceeding before the Heath Professions Appeal and Review Board (the "Board"). The applicant had originally filed a complaint at the College about comments made by the respondent in an article in a medical publication. The applicant alleges that during the investigation by the College, the respondent made a comment about her religious beliefs in an effort to discredit her and during the proceeding at the Board had his counsel refer to her religious beliefs again in an effort to discredit her.

3On April 9, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision in this Application as well as two related Applications, 2010 HRTO 789. With respect to this Application, the Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant as to how her allegations against the respondent raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide and, in particular, how her complaint about Dr. Unger's comments during the College's investigation amounts to discrimination in respect of goods, services and facilities.

4On April 12 and 14, 2010, the applicant sent two emails to the Tribunal. With respect to the jurisdictional issue, the emails repeat the basis of the applicant's Application against the respondent – namely that the respondent "lied" to other doctors and then when the applicant complained about his comments in the article to the College, he attempted to discredit her. The applicant maintains that by informing the College of her religion in order to discredit her complaint, the respondent was discriminating against her in services.

5As noted in the Tribunal's Interim Decision, its jurisdiction is limited to the social areas, grounds and categories of discrimination set out in the Code. As the applicant has based her Application against the respondent on section 1 (discrimination in services, goods and facilities), she must be able to demonstrate that the discrimination arose in respect of a services relationship with the respondent.

6Based on the allegations made, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this Application. In essence, the applicant is complaining about comments made by the respondent in the course of an investigation of her complaint by the College and the subsequent proceeding at the Board. There is no basis on which to conclude that the alleged treatment of the applicant arose in connection with the provision of a service by the respondent. In the context of the investigation by the College and subsequent proceeding at the Board, the respondent is not providing a service to the applicant nor does there appear to be a direct service relationship between the applicant and the respondent.

7The Application is dismissed.