Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Jeff Wilson Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General, Valerie Neville, Cathy Hiuser, Bernadette Flis, Linda Dembe and Murray Quinn Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: March 15, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 538 Indexed as: Wilson v. Ontario (Ministry of Attorney General)
APPEARANCES:
Jeff Wilson, Applicant ) Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario ) as represented by the Attorney General, ) Valerie Neville, Cathy Hiuser, Bernadette Flis, ) Heather McIvor, Linda Dembe and Murray Quinn, ) Counsel Respondents )
1This is an Application filed on July 29, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
2The Application alleges discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the grounds of race, ethnic origin, creed and sexual orientation. The applicant also alleges that the respondents have engaged in a reprisal against him contrary to the Code.
BACKGROUND
3The Application arises out of a letter sent to the applicant on February 10, 2011 from an officer of the Hamilton Police Service responsible for court services at a courthouse in Hamilton. The letter states that the applicant was seen on a security video entering the courthouse through a side door on December 22, 2010. It states that the courthouse is closed to the public at that time of day, and the applicant can be seen following behind an employee as the employee used an access card to enter the building.
4The letter advised the applicant that since he was no longer employed by any agency at the courthouse, he no longer had authority to enter the building during off hours and his actions constitute an act of trespassing. The letter advised the applicant that he is now prohibited from entering any courthouse in Hamilton, unless there is a legal matter that requires his attendance, and subject to proof of his required attendance.
5As background, the applicant is a former employee of the respondent Attorney General (referred to here as MAG). Events during his employment led him to file a large number of grievances which were referred to the Grievance Settlement Board, and which resulted in a Memorandum of Settlement dated August 19, 2009. Parts of the settlement were placed before me, redacted for confidentiality. Pursuant to the settlement, the applicant agreed to resign from his position with the Ontario Public Service. He also agreed to withdraw all allegations under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy as well as an application under the Code. The applicant agreed that the settlement satisfied any human rights allegations or facts arising up to the date of the grievances, and released his former employer from any claims arising out of the circumstances of the grievances.
6In this Application, the applicant refers to many of the events which gave rise to his grievances. It appears that the applicant’s grievances were based on his contention that he experienced discrimination and harassment in employment, from managers, supervisors and a co-worker. He believed that their treatment of him was based on his gender and race/ethnic origin (part aboriginal).
7In this Application, the applicant alleges that the decision to issue a trespass notice and impose a prohibition against him is a continuation of the discrimination and harassment. He also alleges that it amounts to retaliation against him for having pursued his grievances.
8The respondents filed Responses in which they state that they are in no way responsible for the issuance of the trespass notice, or with prohibiting the applicant from entering the courthouses. They state that matters relating to court security fall within the statutory purview of municipal police forces and that the actions of the officer were taken independently of any of them. They state that the applicant has provided no factual basis from which to infer that the officer took direction from any of the respondents and in fact, he would not have been permitted to.
9The respondents object to the applicant relying on any of the events pre-dating the settlement of August 2009. In their Responses, they submit that the Tribunal should dismiss that part of the Application under section 45.1 of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1