HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tracey Foster Applicant
-and-
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and Leslie McIntyre Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: November 1, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2180 Indexed as: Foster v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"), raises allegations that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability, sex, and sexual solicitation in the provision of goods, services and facilities.
2The respondents have filed a Response in which they deny the allegations of discrimination and seek, among other things, the dismissal of the Application on the basis that it is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction (power) to decide.
BACKGROUND
3The applicant states that she sought an order from the Information and Privacy Commission ("IPC") compelling the Toronto Police Service ("Police") to disclose certain information.
4Based on of the number of documents requested by the applicant, the IPC decided to uphold the Police's decision to extend the time for responding to the applicant's information request.
5The applicant takes issue with the IPC's decision to uphold the extension of time. A Notice of Order rendered by Leslie McIntyre states:
The appellant has not made a credible connection between any delay in the access to information process under the Act and her ability to seek and obtain medical treatment, or whether or not she will be compelled to proceed with a medical assessment in the context of her civil litigation.
6The respondents explain that the applicant has appealed the IPC's decision to allow the extension and that the appeal has not yet been decided.
ANALYSIS
7Section 1 of the Code states:
Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.
8The issue for me to determine is whether or not this Application relates to the provision of services, within the meaning of section 1 of the Code.
9The Tribunal has considered whether statutory decision making, or aspects of it, fall under the definition of "services" in the Code. See, for example, Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1595; Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99; and Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 765.
10It follows from these cases that, while a statutory decision-making process is a "service" for the purposes of the Code, there are elements of that process that are not encompassed by the Code's meaning of "service", such as the decision itself. The content, reasons and result contained in a decision of a statutory decision-maker are not part of the "service" a statutory Tribunal is providing to the public.
11In Zaki, supra, the Tribunal explained:
Therefore, in determining whether an application relates exclusively to the "content, reasons or result" of an administrative decision under the Baird analysis, the Tribunal must examine whether the claim is exclusively about the adjudication or decision or whether the applicant is making a claim about his or her inability to obtain benefits or other services from the respondent.
12In my view, the Application relates exclusively to the result, content and reasons of the IPC's adjudicative process. I note that the applicant has named the IPC and its adjudicator as respondents. She does not name the Police, nor does she allege that the Police's decision was discriminatory or that it ought to have given greater weight to the human rights issues raised.
13Rather, the Application takes issue with the IPC's decision to uphold the extension of time. All of the allegations relate to the decision that was rendered and there is no contention that other, non-decisionary aspects of the IPC's process were discriminatory. While the applicant alleges that the IPC ought to have given greater consideration to human rights issues, in my view, that allegation relates fundamentally to the decision-making role of the IPC and is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
14The Application relates exclusively to the results, content and reasons of a decision rendered by the IPC. Accordingly, the Application falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of November, 2010.
"Signed by"
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair```