Brooks v. Social Benefits Tribunal of Ontario, 2014 HRTO 1708

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Khadijah Brooks Applicant

-and-

Social Benefits Tribunal of Ontario, Sonja Bozovic-Oczak, Beverly Moore, Luba Neuwirth, Don Nickle, Leslie Jardin, Ian Leishman and Maryann Farenech Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: November 26, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1708 Indexed as: Brooks v. Social Benefits Tribunal of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Khadijah Brooks, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1In her Application, the applicant alleged that the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) and various individuals employed by the SBT and others discriminated and reprised against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant claims that she was discriminated against because of race, colour, disability, sex, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, age and association with a person identified by a ground protected under the Code. She also claims to have been reprised against contrary to the Code. In her Application, the applicant claims that the respondents named in her Application discriminated against in the course of denying her Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits.

2On October 1, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Against Certain Respondents (“NOID”) because the Application against certain respondents appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the NOID indicated that the allegations against the SBT and Lisa Freedman appeared to relate to actions carried out as part of their adjudicative duties. As such, the NOID advised that these allegations appeared to fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

3The NOID also indicated that the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the following respondents named in the Application: Sonja Bozovic-Oczak, Sue (unknown last name), Beverly Moore, Luba Neuwirth, Alexandra Alvarado-Bowen, Don Nickle, Leslie Jardin, Ian Leishman and “every director, supervisor and manager employed at the SBT who has been employed during March 2012 and February 2014 at all offices involved.”

4In the NOID, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding these jurisdictional issues. The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal. In her submissions, the applicant alleged that Lisa Freedman, Luba Neuwirth, Sonja Bozovic-Oczak, Beverly Moore and Ian Leishman all abused their power by denying benefits to families. She claims that all of these individuals supported the opinion of another named respondent, Maryann Farenech, and made unethical and racist decisions as well as inappropriate comments during phone conversations.

5The applicant alleged that Mr. Nickle and Ms. Jardin interfered with her ODSP benefits. She claims that this was a “clear abuse of authority on both parties not to mention neglect, racism, age, culture and creed as well.”

6As for why she named as a respondent “every director, supervisor and manager employed at the SBT who has been employed during March 2012 and February 2014 at all offices involved”, the applicant stated that this was her being nice.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

7At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s allegations against Lisa Freedman, Sue (unknown last name), Alexandra Alvarado-Bowen and “every director, supervisor and manager employed at the SBT who has been employed during March 2012 and February 2014 at all offices involved” fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

8The allegations against Lisa Freedman fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity. The doctrine of judicial immunity prohibits legal proceedings against judicial and quasi-judicial actors that are based on their actions as adjudicators or decision-makers. The doctrine is rooted in the principle of judicial independence, the purpose of which is to ensure that judicial and quasi-judicial actors are free to execute their decision-making duties with independence and without fear of consequences. See, for example, Taucar v. University of Western Ontario, 2013 HRTO 597 and Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180.

9The applicant is seeking to challenge a decision made by Ms. Freedman with respect to her claim to benefits in December 12, 2013. This decision is a quasi-judicial decision to which the doctrine of adjudicative immunity applies. Therefore, it is plain and obvious that the Application against Ms. Freedman is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed.

10The Application as against Sue (unknown last name), Alexandra Alvarado-Bowen and “every director, supervisor and manager employed at the SBT who has been employed during March 2012 and February 2014 at all offices involved” fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the applicant has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by these individuals.

11I find that the Application as against the other respondents should not be dismissed at this early stage since it is not “plain and obvious” that the allegations against them fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

12Having said this, I must note that most of the applicant’s allegations appear to relate to alleged abuse of authority which, in and of itself, is not a violation of the Code. As the Tribunal has repeatedly found, it does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness unrelated to the Code. The Tribunal also does not have jurisdiction over claims of abuse of authority, negligence or allegations of breaches of the law or policies that are unconnected to the Code. While the applicant has claimed that the remaining named respondents to her Application undertook discriminatory actions or comments, her allegations lack detail and, in some cases, do not support her allegation of a Code violation. As an example, in her submissions in response to the NOID, the applicant claimed that Mr. Leishman told her that one of the other named respondents was in jail for threatening to kill her. While the applicant claims that Mr. Leishman made discriminatory comments to her, the only comment referred to in her materials was the one set out above which seems completely unrelated to any ground protected under the Code and on its face would not violate the Code.

13In addition, it appears that some of the respondents’ actions being challenged in the Application may be covered by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

14The Tribunal will hold a summary hearing to address these issues.

Respondents’ addresses

15The only address for the respondents provided by the applicant is the address for the SBT. The Tribunal will deliver materials to the SBT and the personal respondents who appear to be employed by the SBT to the address for the SBT in the Tribunal’s files.

16It appears that some of the individuals named as personal respondents are not employed by the SBT. In particular, based on the Application, Mr. Nickle, Ms. Jardin, Mr. Leishman and Ms. Neuwirth do not appear to be employed by the SBT. As well, according to the applicant, Ms. Farenech is in jail. The Tribunal cannot proceed with the Application as against these personal respondents until the applicant provides addresses for these individuals. The Tribunal requires addresses for these individuals to provide them with Notice of the Application and to provide them with an opportunity to participate in the summary hearing.

17Previous Tribunal decisions have explained that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide accurate contact information for respondents named in an Application. See Guild v. Kyle-Jansen, 2008 HRTO 347 and Osman v. Elle Productions Security, 2009 HRTO 1426. See also Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal may dismiss an Application if it is unable to contact respondents named in an Application.

Order and Directions

18For the reasons set out above, the Application as against Lisa Freedman, Sue (unknown last name), Alexandra Alvarado-Bowen and “every director, supervisor and manager employed at the SBT who has been employed during March 2012 and February 2014 at all offices involved” are dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

19The Application as against the SBT, Sonja Bozovic-Oczak, Beverly Moore, Luba Neuwirth, Don Nickle, Leslie Jardin, Ian Leishman and Maryann Farenech will proceed to a summary hearing.

20The Registrar will deliver this Interim Decision to the SBT, Sonja Bozovic-Oczak, Beverly Moore, Lisa Freedman, Sue (unknown last name), and Alexandra Alvarado-Bowen to the address the Tribunal has for the SBT in its files. The Registrar will deliver the following additional materials to these respondents: a copy of the Application, a copy of the Tribunal’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss, and a copy of the applicant’s submissions in response to the Tribunal’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

21The Tribunal will deliver a copy of this Interim Decision and other associated materials to the other personal respondents named in the Application once it receives addresses for these individuals from the applicant.

22The respondents need not file a Response to the Application unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

23The Tribunal will issue a Case Assessment Direction providing directions for the summary hearing once it receives from the applicant the missing addresses for the personal respondents, or the time for the provision of these addresses has expired.