Abdul v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1578

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and Ena Chadha

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: August 24, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1578

Indexed as: Abdul v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hana Abdul, Applicant ) Self Represented

BACKGROUND

1The applicant filed this Application on May 26, 2011, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin and creed. Essentially the applicant alleges she was discriminated against by the personal respondent, a Vice-chair of the Tribunal, with regard to a Tribunal decision by the personal respondent dismissing an earlier Application by the applicant.

2On July 4, 2011, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) which stated in part:

The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO's jurisdiction because:

• The/a respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The HRTO has stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180.
• You appear to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. 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 by other statutory bodies, including the Courts. See for example Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99; Christianson v. Ontario (IPC) 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration refused 2009 HRTO 424; Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) 2009 HRTO 1595.

3The applicant was invited to make submissions with respect to the NOID.

4The applicant filed a response to the NOID, dated July 21, 2011, stating in part, "I accept the Tribunal's decision to dismiss this case".

ORDER

5In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed.