HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ralph Tait
Applicant
-and-
Crown Attorney, County of Renfrew
Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Tait v. Crown Attorney, County of Renfrew
1This is an Application filed on November 17, 2010 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race, place of origin and citizenship.
2The applicant alleges that during the course of a meeting prior to a criminal trial, to review the possible resolution of a long standing dispute, the respondent failed to treat him with courtesy and respect and referred to him as a “newcomer”.
3On May 3, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) The Notice referred to the following relevant cases: Oliphant v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2009 HRTO 1902 and S.M. v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1705. The Notice required the applicant to provide written submissions on the jurisdiction issue by May 23, 2011. In addition the Notice provided that if the applicant did “not provide written submissions as directed, the HRTO will make its decision based only on the information in your Application…”. Written submissions have not been forthcoming as required by the Notice.
DECISION
4I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this Application.
ANALYSIS
5The Tribunal has held on numerous occasions that the action of prosecutors (Crown Attorneys) in the course of carrying out their duties are not “services” within the meaning of the s. 1 of the Code or are not subject to the Code because of prosecutorial immunity: see Inward v. Toronto (City) 2010 HRTO 2127 and the cases cited in paragraph 7.
6Accordingly, I am compelled to find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.
ORDER
7The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of November, 2011.
“signed by”
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair