Majeed v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 509

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tariq Majeed Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services (Family Responsibility Office), Ambreen Farooq and Jeffery Hart Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith Date: March 14, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 509 Indexed as: Majeed v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tariq Majeed, Applicant ) Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed on February 3, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine the applicant’s Request for an Interim Remedy, filed with his Application. Neither document has been delivered to the respondents by the Tribunal and this Interim Decision is based solely on the applicant’s materials.

3This Interim Decision will also serve as a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application because it appears the Application raises issues outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power) to consider.

4The Application alleges that the institutional respondent discriminates against the applicant on the grounds of disability, family status and marital status although it appears in the applicant’s narrative that he is also alleging discrimination based on race and religion. The allegations appear to stem from the enforcement of a child support order by the institutional respondent against the applicant.

5The applicant appears to request an Interim Remedy to the effect that the institutional respondent be directed to cease enforcement of the child support order against the applicant. In his submissions, the applicant states that if the support order continues to be enforced he will become “homeless and without food” and that he, “…would lose ability to afford basic necessities”.

Decision Regarding Request for Interim Remedy

6Rule 23.3(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure require a Request for Interim relief be accompanied by, “one or more declarations signed by the persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies”. The applicant has failed to include such a declaration with his Request. In lieu of a declaration, the applicant has filed a copy of an Order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia which appears to authorize the institutional respondent to enforce a child support obligations against the applicant. The applicant has also filed a number of documents including a Canada Revenue Agency “Notice of Assessment” and other documents apparently demonstrating that garnishment in aid of the child support order has been undertaken against the applicant by the institutional respondent.

7The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, state:

The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

8Normally, the Tribunal’s power to order respondents to do or refrain from doing something is contingent upon a finding that they have violated the Code. Interim remedies are extraordinary in that they constitute an order to do or refrain from doing something in the absence of a finding that the Code has been violated. The fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is whether an interim remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found. For theses reasons, an applicant has a significant onus to meet in demonstrating that the request meets the three elements in Rule 23.2. See TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369; Homonay v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 1495; Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission 2010 HRTO 2105.

9The only “declaration” the applicant has filed in support of his Request are the documents mentioned above. These documents do not address the factual assertions made in his submissions on the harm of being denied an interim remedy. Even assuming, without deciding, that the Application meets the first criterion above, the Tribunal is not convinced that the applicant has met the significant onus to demonstrate that the harm or inconvenience to him of being denied the interim remedy outweighs the harm or inconvenience to the applicant’s children on who’s behalf the institutional respondent is acting. The material does not establish that the financial relief the applicant seeks would be unavailable at the end of a hearing, absent the interim remedy, or that the Tribunal’s ability to make a final award complete, effective and appropriate requires the interim relief requested. See Blustein v. Ontario Realty Corporation, 2010 HRTO 307.

10It has not been established that the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested, or that it is just and appropriate to do so.

Notice of Intent to Dismiss

11This Interim Decision will also serve as a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rule 13.2.

12In reviewing the Application and applicant’s other submissions it appears the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and therefore should be dismissed because:

a) The Application and other submissions fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents;

b) The Application appears to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process ie., an order of the British Columbia Provincial Court and the subsequent enforcement of that order by the Ontario Family Responsibility Office. The Tribunal has held on a number of occasions that “services” within the meaning of the Code does not include the outcomes or decisions resulting from adjudications or enforcement processes by other statutory bodies, including the Courts: Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99; Christianson v. Ontario (IPC) 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration refused 2009 HRTO 424; Gibson v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) 2009 HRTO 870; Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) 2009 HRTO 1595.

c) The respondent Ambreen Farooq is the applicant’s spouse or former spouse. The Tribunal has stated that the relationship between spouses or former spouses is not covered by the Code: Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757.

d) The personal respondent Jeffery Hart is the lawyer for the personal respondent Ambreen Farooq in a family law proceeding involving the applicant. The Tribunal has stated that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Code: Belso, supra; Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390.

e) Some of the events alleged in the Application and submissions took place in British Columbia, and hence may not be connected to Ontario: Cash v. Stryker, 2009 HRTO 1738.

13The applicant is directed to provide written submissions addressing the jurisdictional issues identified above and explaining why he believes his allegations come within the Tribunal’s power to decide. His submissions are to be delivered to the respondents and filed with the Tribunal no later that April 19, 2011. The respondents are not required to make any submissions unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

14The applicant may wish to review the provisions of the Code as the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Guides to its processes, all available on the Tribunal’s website at www.hrto.ca, before responding to the Notice. Tribunal decisions can be accessed free of charge on at www.canlii.org. The written submissions may be filed with the Tribunal by email, fax or mail. A statement of delivery confirming delivery of the submissions on the respondents (Form 23) must also be filed with the Tribunal. The applicant is reminded to clearly write his name and the Tribunal file number on all correspondence and any other documents filed with the Tribunal.

15The Tribunal will consider the applicant’s submissions before deciding whether to dismiss or proceed with some or all of the Application. If the applicant does not file written submissions by the required time the Tribunal will make its decision based only on the information in its file or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application and dismiss the Application for that reason.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission

16The applicant has identified the Ontario Human Rights Commission as his representative in these proceedings. The applicant’s attention is directed to s. 29 of the Code which confirms that the Commission does not represent individual applicants before the Tribunal.