HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
William Thomson
Applicant
-and-
Ena Chadha
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Thomson v. Chadha
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 13, 2010, in which the applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation on the basis of membership in a vocational organisation. The applicant fails to explain how the respondent is brought within that ground. However, I note from review of the Application that the applicant’s concerns arise out of an the determination of his Application to the Tribunal arising out of a workplace dispute and related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceedings and therefore is more properly understood as brought against the respondent in the social area of “goods, services and facilities”.
2The Application names a Tribunal Vice-chair as the respondent. On April 23, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the parties seeking their position on whether the identity of the respondent raised a reasonable apprehension of bias such that the Tribunal was precluded from hearing and deciding the Application. This letter also noted that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as it appeared to challenge the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process, which has not been found to be services within the meaning of the Code, and identified a number of Tribunal decisions with citations which were relevant to this issue.
3On May 6, 2010, the applicant responded by email stating, “I have already made an application and submitted three additions to that application. For filing a submission with the Tribunal, I can think of nothing further than what is already in that application and additions, other than regarding the issued (sic) commented upon in the immediately previous paragraph.” The previous paragraph of his email notes that, as a high school teacher and not a lawyer, the applicant had “no idea how to direct my attention to such decisions” and asking the Tribunal to provide him with copies of them and all other relevant decisions and seeking additional time to understand them. For the record, the Tribunal’s website provides a link to the free, publicly accessible, and fully searchable database which contains all the Tribunal’s decisions.
4On May 28, 2010, the representative for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal to advise that “there is no impediment to the Tribunal proceeding to adjudicate this matter at this time” and taking the position the Application should be dismissed on the basis of judicial immunity. This letter was copied to the applicant.
5On June 10, 2010, the Tribunal issued a formal Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The NOID directed the applicant to provide his written submissions on the both the issue of services identified in the earlier letter and the issue of jurisdictional immunity identified by the respondent as follows:
the respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The Tribunal has stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180.
your completed Application does not allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code and therefore does not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve as follows:
You appear to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. The Tribunal has held on a number of occasions that “services” within the meaning of the Code does not include the outcome or decision resulting from adjudications by other statutory bodies, including the Courts. See for example Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99; Christianson v. Ontario (IPC) 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration refused 2009 HRTO 424; Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) 2009 HRTO 1595.
6The applicant was directed to file his submissions within 30 days of June 10, 2010. He was also advised that if he required additional time in which to make his submissions he must advise the Registrar within one week of June 10, 2010, and provide an estimate of the additional time required. The NOID advised that the Tribunal would consider the applicant’s submissions before deciding whether to dismiss or proceed with the Application.
7The NOID also warned the applicant that if he did not file written submissions within the required time, subject to any request for extension, the Tribunal would make its decision based only on the information in the Application or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason.
8The applicant has not filed written submissions addressing the issue identified in the NOID and the time for doing so has now passed.
9The Application is dismissed as abandoned, pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Practice and the file is closed.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of July, 2010.
“Signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair