Raba v. Cook, 2015 HRTO 84

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Tomasz Raba Applicant

-and-

Brian Cook Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: January 21, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 84 Indexed as: Raba v. Cook

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 23, 2014 alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services because of disability and reprisal.

2This Application relates to the dismissal of a prior Application because of delay in Decision 2014 HRTO 1228, reconsideration denied in 2014 HRTO 1648. In his Application the applicant takes issue with the Tribunal’s conclusion that he had not established a good faith explanation for the delay in filing the Application. Based on the Decision it appears that the issue for adjudication was in part that while the applicant asserted that he was “paralyzed” for a period of time, during the same period of time he was engaging in other legal proceedings. In the end the adjudicator was not satisfied. The applicant asserts without particulars that the respondent made these determinations in bad faith.

3On November 21, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) because it appeared that the Application may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide because the claim related to the execution of adjudicative duties or decision making.

4The Application is dismissed.

5Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an Application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Belcastro v. Metrolinx Go Transit, 2012 HRTO 2121.

6In his response to the NOID the applicant asserts that in issuing the NOID the Tribunal is obstructing justice and that the adjudicator is being sued for abuse of public office. The claim that the adjudicator made his determinations in bad faith remains unparticularized – it is merely asserted.

7I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious that the complaint of the applicant is about the content of the Decision made by the adjudicator in the prior Application. Accordingly the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this case. See Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208 and Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineering Corp, 2009 HRTO 2180. Assuming without deciding that an allegation of bad faith would take such circumstances outside of the general law of judicial immunity, there are no allegations of bad faith in this case – only an assertion. In the end the applicant does not agree with the Decision. A new Application alleging discrimination is not the appropriate manner to challenge a decision of the Tribunal.

8For these reasons the Application is dismissed.