HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
C.B.
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Decision Date: May 16, 2012
Indexed as: C.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
APPEARANCES
C.B., Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent
Judith Hupé, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application was filed on December 6, 2010, 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 services, goods, and facilities on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, sex, family status and marital status.
2On June 14, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss stating that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because a civil proceeding was commenced in which Code remedies were being sought (section 34(11)) and/or the Application appeared to challenge an adjudicative decision, which does not come within the area of “services” under section 1 of the Code.
3The applicant filed various submissions with the Tribunal from June 19, 2011 to July 14, 2011. The applicant asserted that there were no civil proceedings involving human rights remedies and that her Application impugned the services, or lack thereof, provided by the respondent Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Society”) and does not seek to challenge a judicial decision.
4By way of Case Assessment Direction dated August 9, 2011, the Tribunal directed that this matter be scheduled for a Summary Hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules of Procedure”).
5Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules states that the Tribunal may hold a Summary Hearing on its own initiative, or at the request of a party, on the question of whether the Application should be dismissed in whole, or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application, or part of the Application, will succeed.
6A hearing by teleconference was held on December 15, 2011. The applicant and counsel for the respondent participated on the conference call. The parties filed various documents both before and after the conference call.
Decision
7I find section 34(11) does not bar this Application from continuing. There is no evidence of a civil proceeding having been commenced in which the applicant seeks section 46.1 remedies.
8I find that issues raised in the Application come within the meaning of “services” under section 1 of the Code. Through the Society’s supervision of the applicant’s access to her child and its involvement with the applicant’s child, the respondent appears to have provided services to the applicant within the meaning of section 1 of the Code.
9However, having carefully considered the parties' submissions and all of the documentary materials, I conclude that there is no reasonable prospect that this Application will succeed. Accordingly, I dismiss the Application for the reasons that follow.
summary of applicant’s allegations
10The applicant alleges that the Society subjected her to discrimination and harassment in the provision of their services because of her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, sex, family status and marital status. The applicant alleges that the Society discriminated against her when it apprehended her newborn daughter B.W., placed B.W. in foster care, and subsequently applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have B.W. made a Crown ward for the purposes of adoption.
11The applicant makes a myriad of allegations against multiple individuals and entities, reaching back many years and across several jurisdictions, including British Columbia, England, and Scotland. The applicant alleges that the Society, the Ottawa police, various judges and the Canadian judicial system are “racist” and have “perverted the course of justice” by “fabricating lies” about her in order “to steal” her child(ren).
12The applicant’s narrative and accompanying documentary materials make repeated reference to concerns to the effect that “the Jewish African community have refused to leave me alone, assaulted, raped, robbed, children taken and police turned blind eye”. In certain instances, the applicant alleges that she did not need the Society’s services and that the Society forced its “racist services” on her and, in other instances, the applicant alleges that the Society offered inadequate services or provisions to her.
13The Application, as originally filed, did not cite the ground of “disability”. However, in the summary hearing conference call, the applicant raised the issue of discrimination on the basis of perceived mental disability. The applicant alleged that the Society considered her