Stepanova v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2015 HRTO 252

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Victoria Stepanova

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, The City of Windsor Employment and Social Services, and Social Benefits Tribunal

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman Date: March 3, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 252 Indexed as: Stepanova v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Victoria Stepanova, Applicant

Self-represented

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed on December 30, 2014, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), which alleges discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability and reprisal. The applicant alleges that she was subjected to harassment and discrimination while attempting to challenge decisions made respecting her entitlement to Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program payments.

2On January 22, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Against Certain Respondents ("NOID") because the allegations against the Social Benefits Tribunal ("SBT") appear to be based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making. As such, the NOID advised that these allegations may fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

3In the NOID, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding this issue. The applicant filed submissions opposing the dismissal of the Application as against the SBT. In her submissions, the applicant asserted that the doctrine of adjudicative immunity does not apply to the SBT because it issued discriminatory decisions as a result of applying discriminatory legislation. I understand the applicant's position to be that legislation relating to Ontario Works is discriminatory because it requires her to prove she has a disability and verify her income, which she cannot do due to her experiences in her place of origin. She also asserted that because the SBT provides services, its decisions are subject to the Code and the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

4At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is "plain and obvious" that it is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant's allegations against the SBT fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

5The applicant's allegations concerning the SBT relate to the manner in which the two named SBT adjudicators conducted the hearings and the fact the applicant was not satisfied with the outcome of the SBT proceedings. The doctrine of judicial immunity prohibits legal proceedings against judicial and quasi-judicial actors that are based on their actions as adjudicators or decision-makers. The doctrine is rooted in the principle of judicial independence, the purpose of which is to ensure that judicial and quasi- judicial actors are free to execute their decision-making duties with independence and without fear of consequences. See, for example, Taucar v. University of Western Ontario, 2013 HRTO 597, and Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180. The Tribunal has previously held that judicial or adjudicative immunity applies to adjudicators of the SBT. See Brooks v. Social Benefits Tribunal of Ontario, 2014 HRTO 1708.

ORDER

6For the reasons set out above, the Application as against the SBT is dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

7The respondent, The City of Windsor Employment and Social Services, has not filed a Response (Form 2) to the Application, and the time for doing so has passed.

8If The City of Windsor Employment and Social Services wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. Failure to file a Response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against the respondent without its participation (See Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure).

9I am not seized of this matter.