Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Vernon Lohan Applicant
-and-
Honourable Justice K.L. McLeod, Sylvia Verkerk, Peel Regional Police and Jamie Hinton Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 17, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1752 Indexed as: Lohan v. McLeod
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of place of origin, citizenship, disability, creed, sexual orientation and marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). It would appear, although it is by no means clear, that the Application relates to events that led to criminal charges and prosecution.
2The Honourable Justice K.L. McLeod was the judge presiding over his sentencing. Sylvia Verkerk is listed on the transcript of those proceedings as the applicant's defence counsel. The applicant sent to the Tribunal a number of emails from Jamie Hinton, which appear to show that Hinton is a Manager, Compliance and Licensing Enforcement for the City of Mississauga.
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
3A Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") was issued on July 17, 2012 indicating that the Application against McLeod J. appears to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it is subject to the doctrine of judicial immunity. The applicant did not file submissions in response to the NOID and the time for doing so has now passed.
4The doctrine of judicial immunity has been applied by this Tribunal to shield the courts and administrative tribunals from Applications concerning the actions of judges and adjudicators while acting in their adjudicative capacity. This line of authority states that judicial immunity exists to shield decision makers from complaints about their conduct that might otherwise "drastically reduce" their ability to "independently and impartially decide cases before them" (see Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208).
5In this case, the only allegations against McLeod J. are comments she apparently made on the transcript at this sentencing. This would clearly fall within the doctrine of judicial immunity and the Application against McLeod J. is dismissed.
Particulars
6With respect to the remaining respondents, the Application is deficient in that it fails to set out sufficient detail about the allegations against these individuals/entities. The applicant is directed to provide the following details about each of his allegations against these individuals:
- What happened?
- When did each event alleged happen?
- Who was involved?
- Why what happened amounts to a violation of the Code by the respondent?
7The applicant must deliver to the Tribunal and the respondents his answers to the above questions by October 10, 2012. If the applicant has not done so by this date, the Tribunal may dismiss his Application as abandoned.
8The Application and this Interim Decision will be served on the respondents, but they are not required to file anything in response until the Tribunal directs them to do so.
order
9In summary, the Tribunal has issued the following order/directions:
a. The Application against McLeod J. is dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
b. The applicant shall provide particulars concerning his allegations against the remaining respondents by answering the questions set out in paragraph 6 above by October 10, 2012.
c. The Application and this Interim Decision will be served on the respondents, but they will not be required to file anything with the Tribunal until so further directed.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of September, 2012.
"Signed by"_____________________
Naomi Overend Vice-chair