Vasarhelyi v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2010 HRTO 2383

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pal Vasarhelyi

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: December 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2383

Indexed as: Vasarhelyi v. Ontario (Attorney General)

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of sex, and age.

2The applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination in family and criminal courts because he is a male and due to his age. Specifically, the applicant asserts that, because he is a man and eleven years older than his ex-spouse, his testimony has not been accepted in legal proceedings involving marital and custody issues.

3On June 15, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application appears to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. The Notice indicated that 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 of other statutory bodies, including courts. The Notice directed the applicant to the decisions in Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 99, Christianson v. Ontario (IPC), 2009 HRTO 203, and Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1595.

4The Notice invited the applicant to file written submissions regarding this issue within thirty days of the date of the letter. The Notice indicated that if the applicant did not file written submissions the Tribunal may make its decision based 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.

5On July 5, 2010, the applicant wrote the Tribunal and requested additional time in order to consult legal counsel for assistance to file his submissions. In August, 2010, a lawyer contacted the Tribunal and verbally advised that he was representing the applicant. On August 11, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the lawyer and directed the lawyer to file an authorization from the applicant confirming that he represented the applicant; however, no such confirmation has been received by the Tribunal.

6As of the date of this Decision, neither the applicant, nor his lawyer, have responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence, nor filed written confirmation in accordance with the Tribunal’s direction and Rules of Procedure. Further, neither the applicant, nor his counsel, have filed submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

7In addition, based on the information in the file, the applicant appears to allege discrimination and reprisal in the provision of services because he believes decisions rendered by family and criminal courts have treated him unfairly because of his gender and age. As stated in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the Tribunal has determined in several decisions that the legal judgments or orders do not constitute a “service” within the meaning of the Code. For this reason, I also find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the various judges and justices identified in the Application.

8The Application is dismissed.