HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sam Padayachee
Applicant
-and-
Peel Children’s Aid Society,
Michelle Ho Sue and Bryan Shone
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman
Indexed as: Padayachee v. Peel Children’s Aid Society
ORAL SUBMISSIONS BY
)
Sam Padayachee, Applicant ) Self-represented
)
Peel Children’s Aid Society, ) Pamela Yudcovitch,
Michelle Ho Sue and Bryan Shone, Respondents ) Counsel
1This is an Application received December 9, 2008, under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying human rights complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in March 2008 (the “Complaint”) and abandoned upon filing this Application with the Tribunal.
2The applicant alleges that the Peel Children’s Aid Society (the “PCAS”) and the personal respondents discriminated against him on the grounds of ethnic origin and sex in the provision of services.
[3] The purpose of this Decision is to address the preliminary motions raised by the respondents that this Application should be dismissed either as being outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because the Application does not address a service as that term is understood under the Code or, alternatively pursuant to Code s. 45.1, because the subject matter of the Application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. The parties made oral submissions at a Case Resolution Conference (“CRC”) on these preliminary motions.
[4] The personal respondent, Bryan Shone is Supervisor of Family Services at PCAS. The personal respondent, Michelle Ho Sue is a Family Service Worker at PCAS.
[5] The applicant and his estranged wife (“Spouse”) separated in May 2005. The applicant and his Spouse have two children. On May 8, 2006, the applicant began making complaints to PCAS about his Spouse. On August 25, 2006 pursuant to s. 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.11 (the “Act”), PCAS assessed that the relationship between the applicant and his Spouse was placing the children at risk of emotional harm. Following intake and an investigation, PCAS recommended that the parents consider counseling to assist the children to deal with their separation and to help reduce the conflict between the parents. The parents agreed to counseling and PCAS referred them to psychologist Dr. Monik Kalia. The psychologist met with the family members several times and in a report to the PCAS recommended that one child see a professional on a regular basis because the psychologist felt the applicant and his Spouse would not likely resolve their issues.
[6] The respondents argue that under the Act, PCAS provides services on behalf of children in need of protection in the Peel Region. And they submit, the applicant is entitled only to certain family support services that he requires and PCAS provides in order to protect his children. Specifically they argue this would be guidance and counseling under the Act s. 15 (3)(c), which provides as part of the PCAS’s functions that it will:
provide guidance, counseling and other services to families for protecting children or for the prevention of circumstances requiring the protection of children.
[7] The respondents argue that the applicant has not complained about their recommendation that he and his Spouse undertake counseling, but that his allegations instead relate to divorce and custody dispute issues between him and his Spouse. As such, the respondents argue that the Application does not allege discrimination related to any services between them and the applicant.
[8] The applicant argues that if children are receiving services from PCAS, then those services are also by extension services to the parents. He reasons that part of protecting children entails providing services to the parents. He alleges that after PCAS began investigating his complaints on behalf of his children, they treated him unprofessionally and dealt with his Spouse more favorably for reasons of gender stereotyping. This included visiting his Spouse more often, giving his Spouse encouragement regarding the divorce proceedings, and being more pleasant to his Spouse. As well, he alleges that PCAS did not take his concerns about his Spouse’s emotional abuse of the children seriously.
[9] The applicant’s Complaint does not include any allegations regarding the counseling that he and his spouse agreed to. However, at the CRC the applicant contended that Dr. Kalia’s report to the PCAS recommended parenting courses and that PCAS did not follow up to ensure that his Spouse received that type of counseling.
[10] Dr. Kalia’s report was submitted and to the contrary she did not recommend that the Spouse receive counseling, but did recommend that one of the children continue to receive counseling in order to better deal with the parents’ situation.
Decision
[11] The Tribunal does not have the general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside the areas or grounds prescribed in the Code. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, [2008 HRTO 390](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/390). The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to dealing with disputes that properly fall under the Code. The applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination in the provision of goods and services contrary to section 1 of the Code, which provides:
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.
[12] The various contexts in which the Tribunal has found the area of “services” to be engaged suggest the necessity for some sort of service relationship, as opposed to mere interaction, between the parties. See Cooper, supra.
[13] The applicant’s allegations relate to his dissatisfaction with the respondents’ manner in interacting with him before and after they began provision of services to his children. As such these allegations do not relate to “services” to him under the Code. See Sweezey v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2009 HRTO 1296](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/1296).
[14] As the respondents maintain, the applicant only received one service from PCAS and that was a referral for counselling in order to protect the children. The applicant has not alleged that that referral was discriminatory. In receiving the report of the psychologist and in taking any further action as a result with respect to the children, the respondents were not engaged in the provision of a service to the applicant.
[15] Given that the Application does not relate to any services provided by the respondents to the applicant there is no Code protected relationship between the parties on which the Application is founded. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to proceed with this Application and the Application is dismissed. Having dismissed the Application on this basis it is not necessary to decide whether or not the Code section 45.1 applies.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of March, 2010.
“Signed by”
_____________________________________
Judith Hinchman
Member