Szabo v. Ontario Court of Justice, 2015 HRTO 723

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julia Szabo

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Court of Justice

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: June 02, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 723

Indexed as: Szabo v Ontario Court of Justice

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on December 18, 2014, that alleges discrimination with respect to the provision of goods and services because of race, place of origin and ethnic origin.

2On February 13, 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:

• the/a 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.

• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent(s). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless the unfairness is connected, in whole or in part, to one of the grounds specifically set out in Part I of the Code (e.g. race, disability, sex, etc.); see, for example, Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389).

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 by March 16, 2015.

4The applicant has not responded to the NOID and the time for doing so has now passed.

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 to 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 conduct of a Judge of Ontario Court of Justice who refused to grant the applicant’s motion. In addition, the allegations make no apparent connection to the Code.

7From a review of the Application, it appears that the applicant’s only concern is that the Judge refused to grant the order she requested on the motion to the Court. The applicant has provided no details as to how the refusal to grant this order could be a breach of the Code. The conduct she is complaining about is clearly judicial activity contemplated by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

ORDER

8For these reasons the Application is dismissed.