Rousay v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), 2012 HRTO 1162

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Iain Rousay

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Labour (Ontario Labour Relations Board)

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: June 13, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1162

Indexed as: Rousay v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Iain Rousay, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to the provision of goods and services because of race, citizenship, ethnic origin, sex, age and reprisal. Although framed on these grounds there are no allegations in the Application that link the incident complained of and any of the grounds plead.

2The central allegation of the applicant is that an official of the respondent deliberately and in bad faith provided advice that caused him to withdraw his application at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).The applicant’s allegation all relate to the conduct of an official of the OLRB including a ruling made by the named individual in what the applicant describes as a hearing.

3On May 7, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (NOID) on the basis that the doctrine of judicial immunity applied to the circumstances alleged in the Application and directed that the applicant provide submissions in response. The Tribunal will only dismiss an Application at a preliminary stage where it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

4The applicant provided his submissions in response to the NOID. The applicant takes the position that the doctrine of judicial immunity does not apply to these circumstances. The applicant relied extensively on the Tribunal’s Decision in Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180. The applicant alleges that the respondent through its official acted in deliberate bad faith in the course of a hearing and made improper and incorrect “rulings”. This is precisely the situation that the doctrine of judicial immunity is intended to protect.

5I find that it is plain and obvious on the face of the material that the doctrine of judicial immunity applies to these circumstances. I also find that the reasons and rationale in Hazel, above, apply to these circumstances. See also Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208 and Karzi v. Jones, 2010 HRTO 982.

6The applicant argues that the doctrine does not apply where it can be shown that the judicial actor knowingly acted outside of his or her jurisdiction. Although the applicant repeatedly states that the OLRB official acted in deliberate bad faith and denied him a fair hearing, other than this repeated assertion the applicant provides no factual basis for such a conclusion.

7For all of these reasons this Application must be dismissed.