Jayaraj v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2012 HRTO 2013

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

David Jayaraj Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Attorney General and Susan Garossino Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: October 23, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2013 Indexed as: Jayaraj v. Ontario (Attorney General)

APPEARANCES

David Jayaraj, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Respondent Raj Dhir, Counsel

Susan Garossino, Respondent Andrea Denovan, Counsel

Introduction

1This is a Decision in respect of 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 goods, services or facilities because of race, color, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

2In an Interim Decision dated March 20, 2012, the Tribunal directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

3Having reviewed the materials filed and heard from the parties in a teleconference, I have concluded that there is no reasonable prospect that this Application will succeed.

Facts and Submissions

4I heard this matter in two separate teleconferences, because counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General, ("the Ministry") through an inadvertence, was not present at the beginning of the first teleconference.

5The applicant had a hearing before a Justice of the Peace in a matter he referred to as an "accident case". The applicant stated that he was denied an adjournment; he claims that where a litigant is represented by a white man, that person gets adjournments. He alleges that those who hire white lawyers are excused and their charges are dropped. He also alleges that there is a confidential memo or directive from the Ministry that instructs Justices of the Peace and court officials to discriminate on the basis of race.

6Finally, the applicant alleges that the transcript of his hearing, which he ordered for his appeal, was falsified. When he asked for a copy of the recording he was refused. He objects to a directive issued by the Ministry that states that, while litigants may obtain a transcript of a hearing for the purposes of appeal, they may not obtain a copy of the recording of the hearing without a court order. The applicant stated that, although he has appealed his conviction, he has not applied for a court order to obtain the recording of his hearing; his position is that he should not have to do so.

7Counsel for the Ministry stated that the directive, believed by the applicant to have been issued by the Ministry concerning racialized litigants, does not exist. Parenthetically, he noted that Justices of the Peace are independent in respect of their decisions and are not directed by the Ministry as to the way they are to decide cases before them. Finally, counsel for the Ministry indicated that Justices of the Peace are exempt from having to participate in hearings and give evidence because of the application of judicial immunity. Counsel for the personal respondent adopted the submissions of counsel for the Ministry on this point.

8Counsel for both respondents indicated that there is a directive that indicates that a recording of a hearing may not be obtained without a court order.

9In respect of his first allegation, the applicant indicated that he did not have evidence that identified the personal characteristics of lawyers or paralegals, and the orders obtained for their clients, over any span of time, and therefore had no evidence that would establish whether his belief concerning race-based results was accurate. He could not suggest how he would obtain such evidence.

10In regard to his second allegation, the applicant could offer no evidence as to the existence of the confidential directive or memo he believes to exist, and could not explain how he would obtain such evidence.

11The directive to court staff concerning audio recordings does exist. However, the applicant would bring no evidence as to why this directive could be seen adversely to affect litigants on the basis of race, color, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

12The applicant indicated that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that as long as there is "a glimmer of hope" that an Application might be successful, it must be continued. He could not direct me to a decision of this nature, and to my knowledge there is no such decision.

ORDER

13For the reasons noted above, I conclude that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The Application is dismissed.