Victoriya Stepanova v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2015 HRTO 400

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Victoriya Stepanova

Applicant

-and-

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

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman

Date: March 26, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 400

Indexed as: Stepanova v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Victoriya 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.

2By way of an Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 252, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as against Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

3On March 12, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Interim Decision.

4Under Tribunal Rule of Procedure 26.1, only “final” decisions qualify for a reconsideration request. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal determined that even an interim decision may be “final” where it disposes of some or all of the central issues in the application. I am satisfied that the Interim Decision in this matter finally decided the applicant’s claim against the SBT. On this basis, the Tribunal’s reconsideration process is available.

BACKGROUND

5On January 22, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Against Certain Respondents (“NOID”) because the allegations against the SBT appeared 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.

6The 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 understood the applicant’s position to be that legislation relating to OW 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.

7In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s allegations concerning the SBT relate the SBT’s adjudication process 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.

8Therefore, the Application as against the SBT was dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

9The Request for Reconsideration states the Tribunal should reconsider its Interim Decision for the following reason:

(…) it is plain and obvious that SBT committed multiple acts of discrimination against me by sending me back to the government of criminals who committed and continue to commit crimes of genocide against vulnerable civilians in the place of my origin.

The subject-matter of my application to HRTO is not the decision by SBT, as it was misinterpreted by HRTO, which was the deduction of Ukrainian social benefits that depend on the criminals who deprived innocent people of Donbass of all life essentials, let alone social benefits, and caused humanitarian disaster in the region of my origin.

It is plain and obvious that my application is about harassment and coercion of a convention refugee, who was granted protection and safe haven in Canada, but is being sent back to fascists, who decimate vulnerable people of Donbas, instead.

DECISION

10Under section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may, at the request of a party or on its own initiative, reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.

45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules.

(2) Upon request under subsection (1) or on its own motion, the Tribunal may reconsider its decision in accordance with its rules.

11The Tribunal has issued Rules governing such requests as well as a Practice Direction to provide guidance on the Tribunal’s exercise of its reconsideration powers (Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008 amended June 2008). Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states:

26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision

26.5. A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that

(a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

(b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

(c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

12The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Reconsideration begins with the following statements:

Decisions of the Tribunal are generally considered final and are not subject to appeal. However, parties may request that the Tribunal reconsider a final decision it has made. Reconsideration is a discretionary remedy; there is no right to have a decision reconsidered by the Tribunal. Generally, the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision where it finds that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for doing so and where these circumstances outweigh the public interest in finality of orders and decisions.

Reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity for a party to repair deficiencies in the presentation of its case.

ANALYSIS

14I find that the applicant has not established that there are compelling and extraordinary circumstances for reconsidering the Interim Decision.

15The applicant asserts that it is “plain and obvious” that she was subject to acts of discrimination by the SBT, but does not specifically identify any allegedly discriminatory conduct. As was explained in the Interim Decision, any allegations relating to the SBT adjudication process and the outcome of the SBT proceeding cannot be challenged through a Tribunal application because such matters are subject to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

16In the Request for Reconsideration the applicant indicates that there are other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. While the written submissions did not expressly address this ground, the applicant asserts that the SBT decision subjects her to possible harm by the government of her country of origin. I believe that the applicant may be intending to assert that this is a factor that outweighs the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. That argument, even if accepted, does not lift the adjudicative immunity. It would need to advanced in the course of an appeal from the SBT’s decision. It does not outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

17In the Request for Reconsideration the applicant also indicates that the Interim Order is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. However, the applicant has not referred to any specific decisions or jurisprudence in her submission.

18In sum, I find that the applicant has not established the existence of any of the criteria in Rule 26 that would lead to reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Request is denied.