Moscardelli v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2013 HRTO 1948

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Tony Moscardelli Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: November 26, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1948 Indexed as: Moscardelli v. Ontario (Attorney General)

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of marital status. The Application relates to a judicial decision compelling the applicant to pay post-secondary education costs for his child. He argues that if he was not single, he would not be required to pay those costs and would be in a position to encourage his child to be independent and access other sources of funding.

2On September 25, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) containing the following reasons:

It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because:

• your completed Application does not appear to raise an issue the HRTO has the jurisdiction (power) to resolve since you appear to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. The HRTO has held on a number of occasions that such decisions are protected by the principle of adjudicative immunity and 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 Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208; Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115.

3The NOID also directed the applicant to file written submissions by October 25, 2013. The applicant did not file submissions in response to the NOID. However, the Tribunal did receive a letter from the office of MPP Bob Bailey reiterating the applicant’s claim that the judicial decision requiring him to pay support for post-secondary education expenses is discriminatory. There were no other issues raised for the Tribunal to consider.

4As the Tribunal set out in the NOID, the Application relates to a judicial decision, and as such, it is protected by adjudicative immunity and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s allegations.

5Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.