Scicluna v. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2015 HRTO 1089

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Valeria Scicluna

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: August 14 , 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1089

Indexed as: Scicluna v. Ontario Superior Court of Justice

WRITTEN

SUBMISSIONS

Valeria Scicluna, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods and services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On June 29, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide because:

The respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The HRTO has stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180; Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115.

3The NOID directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether or not the application should be dismissed because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

4The applicant responded; however, her submissions did not address the issue outlined in the NOID.

5The Tribunal may dismiss an application without providing an opportunity for an oral hearing if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. However, an application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

6In my view, it is plain and obvious that this Application must be dismissed because the allegations relate entirely to the decisions made by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which denied the applicant’s motion. It is not the role of the Tribunal to determine appeals of decisions made by other statutory bodies. The Tribunal has found that it does not have jurisdiction to hear applications with respect to tribunals in the exercise of their judicial functions or decision making based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp., 2009 HRTO 2180.

7From a review of the Application it appears that the applicant’s only concern is that the Judge refused to grant the order she rquested on the motion to the Court. The conduct she is complaining about is clearly judicial activity contemplated by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

8For these reasons I would dismiss this Application.