Jaspal Samra v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, John Kromkamp and Huguette Thomson, 2015 HRTO 1526

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jaspal Samra Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, John Kromkamp and Huguette Thomson Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: November 12, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1526 Indexed as: Samra v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

Allegations about decisions and judgements made by judges

2Most of the Application concerns the applicant’s history of legal problems relating to an order that he make child support payments for a child who he believes does not exist. The applicant believes that he has been the victim of incorrect decision making by the courts and that he has been thwarted by other courts in his efforts to have the incorrect decisions corrected.

3The respondents note that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review decisions or judgements made by judges. Judges acting in their judicial category are immune from civil actions or Applications to this Tribunal because of the doctrine of judicial immunity.

4The Application, as it relates to complaints about decisions or judgements made by judges concerning the applicant, is dismissed because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with such complaints or allegations.

Allegations about interactions with staff of the Court of Appeal

5The Application also alleges that sometime before August 2014, he attended the office of the Court of Appeal and was subjected to racial discrimination. He alleges that he was called a “Conehead” and “Paki” and told he should “go back where you came from”. The applicant alleges that John Kromkamp was involved in this. The applicant named Mr. Kromkamp as a personal respondent to this Application. He also named Huguette Thomson as a personal respondent. The Application includes no allegations about her and describes no interaction between the applicant and Ms. Thomson. However in his Reply, the applicant alleges that, although she did not speak to the applicant directly, Ms. Thomson sent a message to him through another staff member, that he “could return to his home country” if he was not satisfied with the services of the Court. The respondents deny all of the applicant’s allegations, allege that they acted in good faith and without discrimination at all times, and essentially take the position that the allegations are fabrications aimed at re-litigating the underlying dispute.

6As noted by the applicant, the staff of a court office are not protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

7In the Reply, the applicant clarifies that his allegation is that he had a personal interaction with Mr. Krompkamp on or around July 7, 2014, and that on that occasion, Mr. Krompkamp called him a “Paki”. The applicant alleges that there were witnesses to this conversation, and he has provided an affidavit sworn by his wife. According to it, Mr. Krompkamp also called the applicant a “Conehead”.

8In the Reply, the applicant mentions another Court official and an interaction with her in July 2013, when she allegedly referred to him as a “Paki” and a “Conehead”. He asks that this person be added as another personal respondent to the Application.

9In regard to this request, I note that the alleged interaction with her occurred in July 2013. This was more than one year before the Application was filed on June 17, 2015. As noted in the Response, this Tribunal can only deal with allegations when an Application is filed within one year of the alleged incidents, unless there is a good faith explanation for the delay. The applicant has offered no good faith explanation for the delay in filing an Application regarding the alleged interaction on July 2013. For that reason, the request to add an additional personal respondent is denied.

Order

10The allegations, unproven at this point, that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with are: that Mr. Kromkamp called the applicant a “Paki” and a “Conehead”; that Ms. Thomson told him he could “go back to his own country”; and that racist attitudes contributed to decisions they made in processing documents. All other allegations, as well as the request to add an additional respondent, are dismissed for the reasons above.

11The Tribunal will schedule a half-day in-person hearing to hear evidence about these allegations. The Registrar will send a Notice of Hearing with further instructions.