Lockwood v. Provincial Court Judge, 2015 HRTO 787

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Cory Lockwood Applicant

-and-

Provincial Court Judge (Judge Beaman) Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman Date: June 12, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 787 Indexed as: Lockwood v. Provincial Court Judge

1This Application alleges discrimination during the course of his trial and sentencing because of race, ethnic origin and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2I understand the Application to be alleging that the Provincial Court Judge who conducted his trial and sentencing was prejudiced against him because she believed that he is "Indian" due to his long hair, and that the Judge's reference to "playing ping pong" was related to the applicant's disabilities. The applicant also alleges that the Judge conspired with the Crown Attorney and his former Legal Counsel to ensure that he would be convicted.

3On May 14, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") because it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction for two reasons:

• The respondent is a judge. The Tribunal has stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity; and
• The applicant appears to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. The Tribunal has held on a number of occasions that such decisions are protected by the principle of adjudicative immunity and that "services" within the meaning of the Code does not include the outcome or decision resulting from adjudications by other statutory bodies, including the Courts.

4The applicant responded to the NOID but did not address the issues set out above in any meaningful way.

5At 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 its jurisdiction.

6In Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208, the Tribunal explained the concept of judicial immunity as follows at paras. 12-15:

The doctrine of judicial immunity prohibits legal proceedings against judicial actors which 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 actors are free to execute their decision-making duties with independence and without fear of consequences.

7In my view it is plain and obvious that this Application ought to be dismissed because it falls outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction as a result of the doctrine of judicial immunity. The applicant's allegations relate entirely to the conduct of a Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Court) Judge during the course of a trial and sentencing. Judicial activity of this type clearly falls within the doctrine of judicial immunity, and therefore cannot be considered by the Tribunal.

8The Application is dismissed.