Massa v. Goderich Court House, 2015 HRTO 158

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Giuseppe (Joe) Massa

Applicant

-and-

Goderich Court House

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: February 3, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 158

Indexed as: Massa v. Goderich Court House

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Giuseppe Massa, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to the provision of goods and services because of age, disability and ethnic origin.

2On July 22, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide for two reasons:

a. Although the named respondent is a court house in Goderich the Application relates entirely to the conduct of a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge and the Tribunal has held on many occasions that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of a adjudicative duties or decision making because of the doctrine of judicial immunity.

b. The applicant also did not identify any specifics acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

3The applicant responded to the NOID but did not address the issues set out above in any meaningful way.

4At this preliminary stage, before the Application has been delivered to the respondent and a Response (Form 2) has been filed, the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application where it is plain and obvious that it is outside the its jurisdiction. However, in my view, it is plain and obvious that this Application must be dismissed because there is no indication that the applicant has experienced any discrimination as a consequence of the alleged conduct of the respondent.

5The applicant’s submissions are not helpful in determining this issue. However, in my view, it is plain and obvious that this Application ought to be dismissed because the allegations of the applicant relate entirely to the conduct of a judge of the Small Claims Court in the course of a pre-hearing settlement conference. In addition to a number of allegations related to the conduct of the Deputy Judge which make no apparent connection to the Code (see below), a key concern of the applicant appears to be the Deputy Judge’s determination that the applicant’s cases should be transferred to London from the Goderich Court. He also complains about remarks the Deputy Judge made about the applicant’s conduct of his various suits being potentially an abuse of process and vexatious litigation. Assuming without deciding that the applicant’s allegations are capable of proof, what the applicant complains about is clearly judicial activity contemplated by the doctrine of judicial immunity. For this reason I would dismiss the Application.

6In light of this conclusion there is no need to consider in detail the other issue raised in the NOID, but I would also observe that there is no apparent nexus between the actions complained of and the Code grounds cited. So for example, for a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court to remind an unrepresented party that she would prefer to be referred to as Your Honour rather than ma’am or advising the applicant that there are no attorneys in Canada do not appear to raise Code concerns in the absence of any allegation that the other parties were treated differently.

7For all of these reasons I would dismiss this Application.