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
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
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”). The Application alleges that the institutional respondent discriminated 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 creed. The allegations appear to stem from the enforcement of a child support order by the institutional respondent against the applicant.
2The purpose of this Decision is to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Application. The jurisdictional issues were identified by the Tribunal in an Interim Decision dated March 14, 2011, 2011 HRTO 509, which also served as a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”).
3On April 26, 2011, the applicant responded to the NOID.
4The jurisdictional issues identified by the Tribunal in the NOID include whether there was discrimination pursuant to the Code, whether the Code can be engaged in the context of a personal relationship between spouses, whether the Ontario Family Responsibility Office (“FRO”) provides a “service” pursuant to the Code, and whether opposing counsel can be properly named as a respondent.
Discrimination
5The applicant makes the following argument with regard to the Tribunal’s concern that the Application and other submissions fail to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code:
Specific Acts:
i. Breach of consent agreement of April 5th 2007 on various counts;
ii. Misleading information and fictitious income, causing intimidation and harassment, due to enforcement actions as well as misleading information to SMH, exposing to further stigmatization due to real or perceived illness causing undue hardship.
iii. Cruel & unusual treatment and abuse of enforcement mechanism, in breach of charter rights s. 12;
iv. Constant interventions at workplace in the name of family status and defamation based on enforcement actions that arise from misleading information, provided to all by Respondent, SMH & Court. [Emphasis in original.]
Services – Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.
In Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1989] 1SCR 143, the Supreme Court of Canada defined “discrimination” as,
a distinction which, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, has an effect which imposes disadvantages not imposed upon others or which withholds or limits access to advantages available to other members of society.
6As noted above, the applicant claims discrimination based on a number of grounds enumerated in the Code, but does not explain how a distinction can be seen between how he has been treated by the various respondents and how those respondents have treated other individuals. For example, in what appears to be the applicant’s key allegations concerning the enforcement of a child support order, he fails to explain how the treatment he has received is distinguishable from other persons subject to such a Court order. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant has not provided any evidence which makes out a claim of discrimination pursuant to the Code.
Spouse as Respondent
7The NOID also raised the concern that the respondent Ambreen Farooq is the applicant’s spouse or former spouse, and that the Tribunal has stated that issues regarding the personal relationship between spouses or former spouses is not covered by the Code. See Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757 at paras. 5 and 6. In his response to the NOID the applicant states:
Relationship between spouses not an issue, breach of contract after separation is…The complaint is about breach of contract between respondent & agents that expose applicant to unrequited undue hardship, intimidation, stigmatization and discrimination due to misleading information provided by respondent and agents.
8Even if the respondent Ambreen Farooq breached a contract with the applicant, it is still a matter concerning the personal relationship between spouses or former spouses and thus, pursuant to the decision in Belso, supra, the allegations against Ms. Farooq fall outside the jurisdiction of the Code.
FRO as Respondent
9The NOID also noted that the Application appeared to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process, i.e. an order of the British Columbia Provincial Court and the subsequent enforcement of that order by the FRO. 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. See the cases cited at paragraph 12 in the Interim Decision dated March 14, 2011.
10In his submissions in response to the NOID, the applicant states with regard to the issue of Tribunal jurisdiction over FRO enforcement orders, “Matter of Breach of Contract not Provision of Services…Breach of consent agreement of April 5th 2007 on various counts”.
11The applicant fails to explain how he is in a contractual relationship with the FRO. As noted above, it is the Tribunal’s view that the central aim of the Application is in fact to prevent FRO from enforcing a Court mandated support order. Therefore, again following the decisions as noted in the Interim Decision dated March 14, 2011 at paragraph 12, the Tribunal finds that it is without jurisdiction to deal with the respondent Her Majesty in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services (Family Responsibility Office).
Opposing Counsel as Respondent
12A further issue raised in the NOID was that 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. See Belso, supra, and Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390. The applicant’s submissions in response to the NOID did not address the concern of including Mr. Hart as a respondent in the Application. The Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction with regard to the applicant’s allegations against Mr. Hart.
Decision
13The applicant no doubt feels he has been treated unfairly or wrongly. However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to dealing with disputes that properly fall under the Code. See Fulton-Bell v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2009 HRTO 1769.
14An application will be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application and any other submissions that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Patterson v. MPW Industrial Service, 2010 HRTO 2140, and Scholtes v. York Regional Transit 2011 HRTO 505.
Order
15Based on the Application and applicant’s submissions, it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Application is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of May, 2011.
”signed by”_________
Alan G. Smith
Member