Zubiak v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2010 HRTO 629

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Zubiak Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ronaq Massey and Maria Tassou Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: March 23, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 629 Indexed as: Zubiak v. Ontario (Attorney General)

1The applicant filed this Application on August 7, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability. The applicant alleges that he was treated in a discriminatory manner when he appeared before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) in October 2007.

2The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking that the Application be dismissed for the following reasons:

1. The named individual respondents are adjudicators of the CICB and are, thus, “subject to immunity akin to judges;”

2. The subject matter of the Application is, in essence, a request for “review and variation of the decision” of the CICB, which is a function that ought to be carried out in an appeal to the Divisional Court. Previous jurisprudence of this Tribunal has indicated that such matters are not properly within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal; and

3. This Application was filed in excess of the one year time limit set out in the Code, without explanation, and the respondents’ respective abilities to recall the events has been affected by the passage of time.

3The applicant did not file a Response to the Request for Order, but did attempt to address some of the issues raised in the respondents request to dismiss in his Reply. It is not possible to determine these issues on the basis of the applicant’s written material. Accordingly, to ensure that these jurisdictional matters are dealt with in a fair and expeditious manner, the Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing to consider whether the Application should be dismissed

4This hearing will proceed by way of teleconference unless the parties advise that an in-person hearing is required. The parties should make any request for an in-person hearing, and the reason for the request, to the Tribunal by March 30, 2010.

5If any party wishes to rely on written material including caselaw not already filed with the Tribunal or any facts not contained in the Application or Response, the party should deliver such documents or information to the other parties and file the same with the Tribunal no later than 14 days before the scheduled hearing.

6In preparing for the hearing, the applicant may wish to review the delay provisions of the Code, which states:

34 (1) If a person believes that any of her or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2 (a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or (b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

7The applicant may also wish to consult with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal’s jurisprudence on those provisions (found at www.canlii.org) and the Tribunal’s Applicant’s Guide and Guide to Preparing for a Hearing before the HRTO available on the Tribunal’s website (www.hrto.ca) or from the Registrar’s office.

8I am not seized of this matter.