Babic v. Ontario Disability Support Plan, 2014 HRTO 219

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dobroslavka Babic

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Disability Support Plan

Respondent

Dobroslavka Babic

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Superior Court of Justice; Hamilton Police Station and Ontario Works

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: February 18, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 219

Indexed as: Babic v. Ontario Disability Support Plan

APPEARANCES

Dobroslavka Babic, Applicant

Self-represented

1These are two related Applications filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In each of these Applications the applicant alleges discrimination with respect to employment, housing, goods and services, contracts and membership in a vocational association, because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, family status and age.

2In her Applications the applicant identified the organizational respondents above as parties. She also identified one individual respondent. However in the narratives of each she refers to a host of individuals and institutions who she claims have harmed her in some way going back to 1997. Given the disposition below I find that there were would be no purpose in attempting to clarify whether the very many other persons referred to were intended to be respondents to these Applications or not.

3These Applications were filed with the Tribunal on December 31, 2013 and January 17, 2014 respectively. The Applications are extremely difficult to follow but it appears that the applicant’s concerns began in the late 1990’s.

4It appears that a key event in both Applications may be the death of one of the applicant’s twin boys in 1998. It is also clear that although the applicant has identified different respondents in the two Applications they are essentially one complaint in the applicant’s view.

5On January 16, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) in both Applications. The NOID advised the applicant that these Applications may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it appeared that the Applications were filed beyond the one year time limit prescribed in section 34(1); that they failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. Finally as regards the Application against the Superior Court of Justice the Tribunal indicated that it may not be able to deal with these allegations because of the doctrine of judicial immunity.

6The applicant responded to the NOIDs with lengthy submissions and in respect of 2014 16487-I identified a great number of additional persons who have allegedly caused her harm including lawyers, law firms, teachers, principals, schools, physicians, hospitals, churches and other organizations with which she appears to have had contact over the years between 1999 and 2003 or 2003.

7In considering these issues I note that the Tribunal has held that at this preliminary stage before the Application has been delivered to the respondents and Responses (Form 2) has been filed, the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application where it is plain and obvious that it is outside its jurisdiction. However in my view it is plain and obvious that these Applications must be dismissed because they are either filed too late or fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination by any of the named respondents.

THE DELAY ISSUE

8Delay is a significant issue in these cases as the bulk of these Applications appear to relate to issues going back to 1997 and largely prior to 2002/2003 and may include various legal proceedings up to 2006. Section 34 (1) and (2) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) read as follows:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

9As indicated above the narrative of these Applications are difficult to follow. To the extent that they can be understood the narratives describe a series of events going back to the late 1990’s and primarily to events up to 2002/03. As previously indicated a son of the applicant died as a result of injuries sustained in a car accident in 1998. There appear to have been a number of pieces of litigation that flowed from the accident and her son’s death and then further litigation flowing from the first law suits. The applicant does state that she left the country for five years and returned to Canada at some point in the last several years. She alleges that in Europe she “heard things” about one of her surviving sons and returned. She alleges that when she returned she found her son having difficulties feeding, clothing and housing himself.

10The Applications describe a number of pieces of litigation following the death of the applicant’s son in January 1998. The narrative of the Application includes no dates but the applicant has provided documents which show that these issues were raised in multiple legal proceedings from 1999 to 2005 including various Superior Court and Small Claims court proceedings and possibly matters before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

11There are other allegations respecting interactions with an employee or employees of Ontario Works between 2002 and 2006. The applicant also makes further vague allegations about various physicians that she has had contact with in the 1990’s and 2000’s as well as various lawyers and law firms presumably in relation to the litigation flowing from one or more car accidents in which the applicant may have been involved in 1998 and 2002. There appear to be claims of sexual harassment at a workplace in 1997 and other claims of discrimination in employment prior to 2003.

12There are repeated references through the narrative to rape, murder and sorcery. The applicant appears to claim that she has been raped on more than one occasion and believes that one or more of her children have also been raped. In one specific instance the applicant appears to allege that one of her children was molested by a judge in 2003. She also appears to contend that sorcery was used in proceedings at the Social Benefits Tribunal. Another recurrent theme in the narrative is that various people have lied, including prosecutors, representatives, judges and tribunal members, all in the course of the adjudication of apparently numerous disputes in which the applicant has been involved.

13The Tribunal has interpreted these provisions of the Code as requiring that a person who wishes to pursue a claim of discrimination to bring the claim forward by filing an Application within one year of the alleged incident, or where there is a series of incidents, within one year of the date of the last incident. The provision has been found to be mandatory subject to section 34(2). The limitation period is consistent with the policy objective, expressed elsewhere in the Code, that human rights claims should be dealt with expeditiously. Thus, the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim. (See Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241)

14It is clear from the narrative of these Applications that the preponderance of the claims relate to events prior to 2006, which may be when the applicant left for Europe. These allegations are clearly out of time and appear unconnected to the narrative description which may relate to events subsequent to the applicant’s return to Canada.

15These allegations related to events prior to 2006 are out of time as these events are said to have occurred at a minimum 6 or 7 years prior to the Application being filed. There is no suggestion that these earlier events form part of a series of incidents connected to the events subsequent to the applicant’s five years in Europe. In any event the Tribunal has held on numerous occasions that the logic of the Section 34(1) is that a gap of one year or more will in most cases interrupt the series of incidents. In this case based on the applicant’s submissions there appear to have been no incidents while she was in Europe therefore the earlier events are significantly out of time and are not connected in time to any event after her return.

16The Tribunal has also held on many occasions that where an applicant seeks to establish that the delay in filing their application was “incurred in good faith”, the applicant must show something more than the absence of bad faith. See Miller above. The applicant advances no explanation at all for the delay in filing these Applications and accordingly I am unable to find that there is a good faith explanation for the delay.

17For these reasons the Applications as they relate to events from 1997 to 2006 are dismissed.

18To the extent that the Applications describe events which may have occurred since the applicant’s return from Europe and accordingly may be timely, having reviewed the narrative of the two Applications they do not appear to identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Code committed by any of the many identified or potential respondents. It also appears that the only formally identified respondent potentially implicated in this part of the narrative may be the ODSP.

19In a lengthy narrative the applicant describes what she perceived to be her son’s difficulties and appears to suggest that someone has identified that he may be a person with a mental health disability. A central complaint seems to be that her son has not been provided with sufficient supports to meet his needs. In response to the NOID the applicant made further lengthy submissions in which she appears to have attempted a response to the issues raised by the Tribunal.

20A sampling of these submissions provides a sense of the applicant’s understanding of the issues:

Alleged victim of welfare. Welfare is not only "send a cheque". Where is his health, wellbeing, safety? Instead inhuman treatment discriminated. lots pain, loss of twin brother, rape, illegal injected, beat, insulting comments daily, exposed to danger when he has contact with black policeman and Italy, and Muslim and Jewish people, and racial Serb and Croatians who openly telling "for lobby cocaine" "she is Serbian woman they are Croatians, "she is Croatian we Serb" "Rebecca and Ray Rikic". Rebecca MacDonald associated, Protocol Company too. Where is his wellbeing, safety, job, investment, education, family?

Victim of LAW. Child Right violated. Student Rights violated. On purpose neglected by many lawyers Stanley M. Tick, Rocco Grilli, Karn Maholthra, Jason Singer, and Michael Bruder who played lawyers by having claim child loss. Those lawyers were lawyers that used to present claim. No one of them considered wellbeing, safety, education, right on private life, right on family. That's the fact.

Alleged victim of lies. Mostly black people told the lies because they "couldn't stand white boy''. I heard on the street openly the following words: "I am fucking his white mother''. He shouldn't be a friend with the police and contact my son neither to be son's friend. Alleged victim of a school teacher who ordered him to move out from school and not to come back. He stayed at home tree days with no reason for that. Teacher shouldn't lost patience, and scream in front of a son, stressing him, possibility of others. School teacher is paid. My son must be compensated as soon as possible for those issues caused by citizens on purpose. Principal paid for not telling mother any word prior incident and after still.

Grounds for discrimination are: Citizen- Mostly black people hate him, followed Serbs and Muslim and Croatians, mostly Jewish people and Italy behind. They cannot stand neither couldn't stand long time ago when we were new immigrants, new citizens. Since arrival.Color of skin- hate toward white boy expressed numerous time and still. Race- nationality is Serb, catholic religion but never been respected, neither accepted. Nonstop he is Croat because of catholic religion. Neither Croatians citizens accepted him as their. NON stop criticizing, complaining, even hate him, how he is not good boy. He is a good boy, child. He was interested in education higher still. Citizens cannot stand him as a boy. "Gay" mostly they telling. He is not gay. His intention wasn't to be, still, possibility that citizens made him. He suffered a lot, still. Pain and tears is here expressions. Citizens used him against his wish, permission, willingness against law for a lobby "gay. When citizens said "CANADA" wants that. What exactly they presenting Steve Harper, country, or their country, their jobs and position, specific group of people who playing government, real government, for government employees, or just for OBAMA BARAK private lobby, especially after twin brother brain taken by black. Possibility of origin even Ancaster. His way of thinking never being accepted neither older son. Written in good faith, truthful information hopping prevent from happening. Family Law never considered by any law person to applying in our case.

Both HRTO FILES consider as one. HRTO FILE: 2014-16471-1. and HRTO FILE: 2014-16487-1 are two files. Written in a good faith, sufficient proves, evidence, even documents submitted. If last, recent issue has been investigated and considered those people who will do that will see relationships, link among people and issues. That's I urge you to consider the facts. There is no money what can substitute loss of twin brother, family, wellbeing, beat, rape, attempt to kill so often, racial comments daily, disrespect, and losing opportunity for anything. That's why is a proof. Also that's why I didn't set out on money is based. Big damaged is done to him. After filing this he must be safe and protected. He must get money that he deserves for damage done all of those years and still.

21The applicant also seems to suggest that her son’s current housing is unhealthy for him, in part, it appears because some of the other tenants in the building are gay. Interspersed with reference to sexual acts the applicant appears to allege that she is unable to move her son from the building because “religion, muslims, black/Serbs/Croatians/even Jews/superior court/ all courts, by citizens” prevent her from doing so. The applicant states that her concern is “influence. Religion is influence/illegal drugs. Spirit wine in … younger son.” The applicant alleges that she “ is discriminated to get place/space. Her son “is discriminated to move out from places used for rape/torts/obey/ (undecipherable).

22I have carefully reviewed the narrative of these Applications and aside from the difficulty in determining when any of the more recent allegations might be said to have occurred I find that it is plain and obvious that there are no allegations made against the identified respondents which engage the Code. The applicant’s ultimate concern as expressed in the narrative in 2013-16487-I appears to be reuniting her family by which it appears she means her two surviving sons and herself, however she also indicates that her eldest son lives with his father.

23I find that there are no allegation that she or her son have experienced differential treatment in respect of the services offered by the respondents. The Tribunal does not have a general power to remedy claims of unfairness. It also has no authority to review decisions under benefit programs, including those based on disability, to determine if they are correct under the legislation, regulations, or policies governing the program. The Tribunal held as follows in Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 at para. 5:

An Application related to a denial of benefits should be dismissed if there is not an allegation of discrimination under the Code. A Code application alleging merely that a decision-maker misapplied the rules of a program or misinterpreted medical documentation cannot be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation and has no reasonable prospect of success.

24The Applicant as they relate to complaints about ODSP and Ontario Works must be dismissed for this reason.

25I also find that there are no allegations of discrimination against the Hamilton Police. I have reviewed the narratives in detail and can find no reference to anything done by any police service beyond some vague references to events many years ago.

26In conclusion although I have reviewed these Applications at length it is impossible to discern any connection between the allegations as against the named respondents with any of the Code issues raised by the applicant and in my view it is plain and obvious that they are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for this reason.

27These Applications are dismissed.