Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Paul Conway Applicant
-and-
St. Joseph’s Health Care Hamilton Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: November 26, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2208 Indexed as: Conway v. St. Joseph’s Health Care Hamilton
1This Application was filed on August 24, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities because of sexual harassment and advances.
2The Application was commenced against St. Joseph’s Health Care Hamilton and the Ontario Review Board – Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The applicant appears to allege that a Panel of the Ontario Review Board inappropriately ordered his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health to St. Joseph’s Health Care Hamilton.
3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) on September 6, 2012. The Notice stated that it appeared that the Tribunal did not have jurisdicition over the allegations as against the Ontario Review Board – Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care because the allegations appear to relate an adjudicator’s decision. The Notice highlighted that the Tribunal has previously held that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180. The Notice required the applicant to file written submissions with respect to the issue of jurisdiction on or before October 6, 2012.
4The October 6, 2012 deadline has passed and the applicant did not file submissions.
5In addition to lacking jurisdiction because of the doctrine of judicial immunity, the Tribunal has also held on a number of occasions that “services” within the meaning of the Code does not include the outcome or decision resulting from adjudications by other statutory bodies, including the Courts. See for example Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99; Christianson v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration refused 2009 HRTO 424; Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1595.
6Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as against the Ontario Review Board – Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of November, 2012.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha Vice-chair```