HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Olivier Mesly
Applicant
-and-
Attorney General of Ontario, and Peter Daley
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Mesly v. Attorney General of Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Olivier Mesly, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
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 sex and family status. Since filing his Application with the Tribunal the applicant was asked on a number of occasions to clarify the identity of the respondents to this Application.
2Since the Application has not yet been delivered to the respondents the summary of the facts is based solely on the applicant’s version of the events.
3The Application alleges that the applicant was the victim of discrimination during the course of an ex parte motion before family Court and that the judge granted certain orders sought by the applicant’s former spouse.
4The applicant was dissatisfied with the judge’s decision including that he did not have notice of the proceedings. The applicant alleges that he was not provided an appropriate level of service because of his sex and family status and that the judge improperly relied on these prohibited grounds to render his decision.
5The applicant filed a complaint with respect to the judges’ conduct to the Canadian Judicial Council (the “Council”). On July 23, 2012, the Council advised the applicant that he should commence an appeal of the decision if he was dissatisfied with the result.
6On February 6, 2013, the Tribunal sent to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and gave the applicant the opportunity to file any submissions by March 8, 2013.
7On February 7, 2013 the applicant responded that he wished to also proceed with the Application with respect to another judge, Mr. Justice Fitzpatrick who presided over another matter in family Court on February 6, 2013. The applicant did not file any submissions with respect to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
DECISION
8I have reviewed the Application as a whole and it is clear that the subject-matter of the Application plainly and obviously does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, dismiss part or all of an Application that is outside its jurisdiction.
9The subject-matter of the Application as against the two proposed Judges is with respect to their decision-making and adjudication of matter before the Courts. This Tribunal has found that, in exercising these types of functions, judges, are protected by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity. See Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp., 2009 HRTO 2180. There is no reason to depart from this finding in the present case.
10With respect to the Attorney General there are simply no allegations made against them in the Application. As such, it is also plain and obvious that the Application does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
11I conclude that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this Application as against the Judges since it is barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity. With respect to the Attorney General it is plain and obvious that the Application does not raise allegations of discriminatory conduct and as such the Application does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
12The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of April, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Débané
Vice-chair