Lina Demedeiros v. Josephine Guido Howe and Sheldon Cordell Howe, 2012 HRTO 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lina Demedeiros Applicant

-and-

Josephine Guido Howe and Sheldon Cordell Howe Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: October 24, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2017

Indexed as: Demedeiros v. Howe

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lina Demedeiros, Applicant

Self-represented

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 and facilities because of family status.

2One of the respondents is the former spouse of the applicant. The Application refers very briefly to legal proceedings related to child support, and indicates that the applicant was in an unspecified way denied “the right to have legal counsel present at trial”. The Application also states that the applicant was “discriminated against with proper reference to the law”. Among the remedies sought by the applicant are a “stay of the case conference scheduled” in a judicial proceeding in which the applicant is apparently involved, and various suggested reforms to civil procedure related to child support matters.

3On August 17, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) which required the applicant to make submissions explaining how the allegations against the respondents relate to the social areas and prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Code.

4The applicant's submissions in response to the NOID contain many detailed criticisms of the civil justice relating to family law as the applicant has experienced it. However, the applicant does not cite facts or make submissions that would explain how the respondents could be responsible for the adverse events cited in the Application. Perhaps more importantly, the Application does not establish a connection between the alleged adverse treatment and a ground of discrimination set out in the Code.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of services, goods and facilities, on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. Clearly the applicant feels that she has been treated unfairly by various people in the course of litigation; however, the Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.

6For the above-noted reasons, the Application is dismissed.