Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Nagy Riad
Applicant
-and-
Superior Court of Justice
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Riad v. Superior Court of Justice
1This Application was filed on February 11, 2011, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability, creed, family status, marital status, and reprisal, arising out of the applicant’s appearance in a court with respect to a family law matter.
2On June 10, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application against the personal respondent Justice Heather McGee because it might be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction based on the doctrine of judicial immunity.
3It appears that the Application is with respect to two distinct issues. The first issue is the allegation that the Court’s decision and conduct is discriminatory based on the Applicant’s creed, family status and marital status because the Court failed to take into consideration the applicant’s assertion that he was still legally married pursuant to church law. The second issue is the allegation that the Court failed to accommodate the applicant’s hearing impairment during the course of the court proceedings.
4In an e-mail dated June 14, 2011, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he would not be proceeding against Justice McGee but would continue his Application against the Court and its staff with respect to their alleged failure to accommodate the applicant’s hearing impairment in the courtroom. Though the applicant advised that he would send a formal submission by July 12, 2011, no further correspondence has been received by the applicant. The Tribunal notes that though the applicant’s email states that he wishes to proceed against certain Court staff, these individuals were not named as individual respondents in the Application.
Order
5Based on the material before me the Tribunal Orders:
a. Justice Heather McGee is removed as a personal respondent and the title of proccedings shall be amended to remove her name;
b. The application will proceed against the respondent solely on the issue of whether the applicant’s hearing impairment was accommodated in the courtroom, as alleged in the Application;
c. The remaining respondent shall be served with copies of the Application, all other correspondence received and sent by the Tribunal, and this Interim Decision, and shall have 35 days from the receipt of these documents to file a Response. The Tribunal clarifies that the decision to issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss in relation to one respondent only and the decision to issue the Notice of Application against the remaining respondent does not preclude the remaining respondent from raising any defences available to it; and
d. If the applicant wishes to add individual respondents to the Application, he must file and deliver a Request for an Order during Proceedings, in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules which identifies the respondent(s) and the particulars of any alleged discriminatory conduct.
6I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day September of 2011.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair