Katherine Lin v. I AM Saint Germain Church et al., 2014 HRTO 1842

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

I AM Saint Germain Church, Vancouver Police, ICBC Vancouver Head Office, Employment Standards Branch Lower Mainland Region BC, Amazing Grace Christian Fellowship, Grace Point Church, Pro Bono Law Ontario, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Employment Insurance Commission Processing and Payment Services, Toronto Police, Ontario Superior Court of Registrar, Thomas Greither, Xiao An Zhou, Jo Anne Seamon, Chantal Tie, David Muir, Paul Aterman, Mirjana Steele, Li Hai Wang, and Lu Liu

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: December 31, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1842 Indexed as: Lin v. I AM Saint Germain Church

1On November 24, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Notice stated that many of the respondents named in the Application are in British Columbia and so fall under the jurisdiction of British Columbia and not Ontario. Other respondents are federal undertakings and so are also not under the jurisdiction of Ontario. Two of the respondents are adjudicators. In respect of the other respondents, it was not clear how the allegations about them have anything to do with the applicant's Code-protected rights.

2The applicant has filed extensive submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

THE RESPONDENTS WHO ARE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

3The respondents I AM Saint Germain Church, Thomas Greither, Vancouver Police, ICBC Vancouver Head Office, Employment Standards Branch Lower Mainland Region BC, Amazing Grace Christian Fellowship, Xiao An Zhou, Li Hai Wang and Lu Liu are all located in British Columbia. The allegations about them are not things that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has jurisdiction to deal with. The applicant indicates that the allegations about these respondents are "indirectly" connected with Ontario but she has not provided a coherent explanation for this connection. The Application against these respondents is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the allegations about them.

FEDERAL RESPONDENTS

4The applicant appears to agree that the Employment Insurance Commission Processing and Payment Services is a federal undertaking. Mirjana Steele is an employee of the Commission. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the allegations about these respondents and the Application is dismissed against them on that basis.

ADJUDICATIVE RESPONDENTS

5The applicant names the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and two of its adjudicators as respondents. While it is clear that the applicant does not agree with some of the decisions that have been made in previous Applications she has filed, she does not identify any Code-related basis for her complaints. Adjudicators who make adjudicative decisions are protected from allegations that their decisions are discriminatory because of the doctrine of adjudicator immunity, referred to in the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario appears to have been named only because the two adjudicators are Vice-chairs of the Tribunal. The Application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, David Muir and Paul Aterman is dismissed for these reasons.

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDENTS

6The allegations against Pro Bono Law Ontario, Jo Anne Seamon and Chantal Tie concern the applicant's complaints that these potential representatives did not agree with her about the validity of her complaints about others. This is not an area that is protected by the Code and the Application against these respondents is dismissed.

TORONTO POLICE AND ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF REGISTRAR

7The applicant details several complaints about her interactions with the Toronto Police and the Registrar's office of the Ontario Superior Court. These relate to the applicant's view about service standards and how the police and court officials should have responded to her questions and requests for service. The allegations do not involve any of the grounds protected by the Code and the allegations are dismissed on that basis.

GRACE POINT CHURCH

8The allegations against this respondent appear to be that a complaint she initiated was not presented to the Board of Directors and that people did not get back to her following initial communications. These are not allegations that involve the applicant's Code-protected rights and the Application against this respondent is also dismissed.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the allegations in the Application.