HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey
Applicant
-and-
Commission des relations de travail de l’Ontario and Mary Anne McKellar
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Hiamey v. Commission des relations de travail de l’Ontario
written submissions
Godfred Kwaku Hiamey, Applicant ) Self-represented )
1The applicant filed Application 2011-10579-I with the Tribunal on December 22, 2011, against the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) and Mary Anne McKellar, a Vice-chair of the Board. The Application alleges discrimination on the basis of race and colour, but does not indicate any social area of discrimination to which it relates.
2On January 30, 2012 the Registrar of the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (the “NOID”) which states:
The Tribunal has examined the Application. It appears that the Application does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because:
The respondent or one of the respondents is an arbitrator or a judge. The Tribunal has found that it does not have jurisdiction to hear Applications with respect to tribunals in the exercise of their judicial functions or decision making based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180.
BACKGROUND
3The applicant filed a complaint at the Board pursuant to section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that his Union, the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, had failed in its duty to represent him with respect to his termination from employment with the Conseil scolaire de district Catholique Centre-sud. Vice-chair Mary-Anne McKellar, the personal respondent, after reviewing the written submissions of the parties, issued a decision dismissing the applicant’s complaint on August 8, 2011 (the “Decision”).
4The Application alleges that the applicant felt discriminated against with respect to the Decision and the behaviour of the Board. Further, the applicant takes issue with the findings made by the Vice-chair in the Decision, and accuses her of being in a conflict of interest, and, amongst other things, acting in bad faith for having made these findings and ultimately dismissing his complaint.
5The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID, taking the position that the Application should not be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of judicial immunity. The applicant’s reasons include that the Vice-chair should not be protected by judicial immunity because of her alleged misconduct, and that he should therefore be permitted to file this Application. With respect to the case law, the applicant states that he does not know these cases, nor does he wish to become familiar with them and that he refuses to be governed by these cases or the doctrine of judicial immunity.
DECISION
6Having reviewed the Application, case law, and the applicant’s submissions, it is clear that the subject-matter of the Application is with respect to the decision-making and adjudication of the applicant’s complaint at the Board. This Tribunal has found that, in exercising these types of functions, adjudicators, including those at the Board, are protected by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity. See Goguen v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2010 HRTO 969. There is no reason to depart from this finding in the present case.
7I conclude that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this Application since it is barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.
8The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 23^rd^ day of April, 2012.
”signed by”______________
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair