Tadesse Gebremariam v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2011 HRTO 1017

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Tadesse Gebremariam Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: May 30, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1017 Indexed as: Gebremariam v. Ontario (Attorney General)

1This is an Application filed on December 7, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2On April 6, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file submissions on certain issues identified in the Notice. The Notice identified the following issues:

• Whether the Application was filed beyond the time limit specified in the Code;
• Whether the respondent is a person covered by judicial immunity;
• Whether the Application identifies any acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent;
• Whether the Application alleges any infringement of the rights of the applicant.

3The applicant filed a letter dated May 4, 2011, addressing the issues in the Notice. Accompanying the letter are 18 copies of page 4 of Form 1 which appear to name 18 additional respondents to the Application.

4On review of the submissions and the documents filed by the applicant, the Tribunal determines that Application must be dismissed, for the following reasons.

THE APPLICATION

5The Application describes events starting in about 1994, when the applicant’s son was a pupil at a school within the Metropolitan Separate School Board Toronto. The applicant alleges that his son was abused by the principal of the school. He states that he reported the abuse to the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS). The applicant’s son was examined by the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC). The applicant alleges that the CCAS misplaced evidence of the abuse. The applicant states that doctors at the HSC and at Doctors Hospital hid or destroyed evidence of the abuse. He alleges that members of the Toronto Police Service hid evidence to protect the alleged abuser, and planned to murder him and his family. These events occurred in 1994 to 1998, including a review of the police investigation by Director of Crown Operations and then by a police superintendent at the applicant’s instigation.

6It appears that the applicant’s son reached the age of majority (18 years) in 2006. The applicant alleges that in 2006, his son was involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment and that doctors at The Scarborough Grace Hospital (Scarborough Grace) administered unnecessary treatment and medication. He alleges that doctors from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) made a false diagnosis and administered unnecessary treatment and medication, and that this was part of a conspiracy involving the alleged perpetrator of the abuse. It appears that the events involving CAMH may have occurred in the latter part of 2009. It also appears that the applicant’s son was also treated at Rouge Valley Centenary Hospital (Rouge Valley) in 2010 and the applicant alleges that doctors and security guards conspired with the alleged abuser to kill or mistreat his son.

7The applicant also attempted to have charges laid against the alleged abuser through a private information, and submitted the transcript of the court proceeding in 2006 in which the Justice of Peace found no reasonable prospect of conviction. The applicant alleges that the Crown Counsel and Justice of the Peace conspired to cover up the crime. The applicant appealed the ruling to the Superior Court of Justice, which resulted in an appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal and then an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The applicant alleges that counsel for the Crown in the appeal acted improperly in order to protect the alleged abuser.

8The applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on December 10, 2009. The applicant alleges that all the courts that have dealt with the matter were part of a conspiracy to protect the alleged abuser.

9In summary, the applicant alleges that police offers, social workers, medical experts, the courts and crown counsel have all conspired to protect the alleged abuser.

SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE

10The applicant submits that the Tribunal has no grounds to dismiss the Application “unless there is a set up and conspiracy and/or discrimination within the HRTO Registrar.”

11The applicant submits that the last incident of discrimination is October 2010 and that the Application is therefore not untimely. This date appears to be based on correspondence from the applicant to the Toronto Police Service in that month, asking it to investigate the events dating back to 1994, and correspondence from the applicant to Rouge Valley in the same month, alleging mistreatment of his son. It is not apparent when the events at Rouge Valley occurred although on a reading of the letters, it appears they were recent.

12The applicant submits that the issue of judicial immunity has no bearing on his Application.

13With respect to the third issue identified in the Notice (whether the Application identifies acts of discrimination on the part of the respondent), the applicant relies on the material filed with the Application.

14With respect to the last issue, whether the Application alleges discrimination against the applicant in his own right, the applicant submits that he is the applicant because his rights have been infringed within the meaning of the Code. He refers to the material filed by Crown counsel in his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He appears to believe that Crown counsel informed the Supreme Court that evidence was misplaced by the CCAS and doctors.

15He states that his son was held at Scarborough Grace and CAMH involuntarily, in an infringement of the applicant’s rights as substitute decision maker.

DECISION

Rights of the Applicant

16In the Notice, the Tribunal noted that the Application does not allege that any of the rights of the applicant have been infringed, and the Application is not made on behalf of another person under section 34(5).

17As it is apparent that the allegations arise out of the applicant’s contention that his son was abused, and that social workers, doctors, the police and the justice system have conspired to prevent the alleged child molester from being held accountable, the applicant was required to explain how the Application relates to allegations of violations of his own rights under the Code.

18The applicant makes two submissions on this issue. He states that the CCAS social workers and medical experts “misplaced” evidence intentionally to protect an alleged child molester. He states that this contravened his right to use this evidence in a court proceeding. In addressing this issue, the applicant refers to a statement apparently made in a factum by Crown counsel to the effect that

[t]he Applicant’s focus on the matter of third party records is misplaced.

19The statement does not provide any basis for an allegation that the CCAS and doctors intentionally misplaced evidence and that this constitutes a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code. First, the statement does not in itself state that the CCAS and doctors intentionally misplaced evidence, only that the Applicant’s focus on the issue of third party records is misplaced (i.e., mistaken). Second, I am unable to see how, even if there was any issue of “misplaced evidence”, this would amount to discrimination against the applicant within the context of a relationship covered by the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into allegations of unfairness or wrongdoing. Its jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in a number of social areas such as services, employment and housing. Whether or not the applicant has a remedy for any alleged misconduct in relation to evidence sought to be obtained for a criminal proceeding (and it does appear that he has attempted to have the courts deal with this issue), it does not lie with this Tribunal.

20The applicant’s second submission on the issue of how his rights under the Code have been infringed is that by administering unnecessary medication to his son, doctors have intentionally infringed his rights as a substitute decision maker. The applicant has not explained how his rights as a substitute decision maker relate to his rights under the Code and again, whether or not he has a remedy elsewhere for any apparent violation of such rights, it is not with this Tribunal.

21Apart from the two instances above, the applicant has not explained how any of the other events detailed in the Application infringe on his rights under the Code.

Delay

22In any event, it is apparent from the material that the only events referred to that may have occurred within a year of the filing of the Application are the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada denying the applicant leave to appeal, the alleged mistreatment of the applicant’s son at Rouge Valley in 2010 and, possibly, the alleged mistreatment of the applicant’s son at CAMH in 2009. For the reasons above, and as well, because of the doctrine of judicial immunity, none of these events can form the basis of an allegation of a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code.

23The other events referred to in the Application fall outside of the one year deadline for bringing an Application, and the applicant has not provided any explanation for his delay in filing the Application.

24The Application is dismissed.