D.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, 2016 HRTO 1187

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

D.S.

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: September 9, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1187

Indexed as: D.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin

APPEARANCES

D.S., Applicant

Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, Respondent

Dawn Dubois, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services provided by the respondent, Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (“CAS”), contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application identifies race, ancestry, ethnic origin, creed, family status, marital status, and age as alleged grounds of discrimination.

2On review of the Application, the Tribunal noted that it appeared that the substance of the Application may have been dealt with in proceedings before the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CSFRB”) and before the Ontario Court of Justice.

3Section 45.1 of the Code provides as follows:

45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

4In addition, if the Application was not dismissed for this reason, it was not clear how the applicant would be able to successfully show that the unfair treatment that he alleges occurred was related to a Code-protected ground.

5The Tribunal determined that a preliminary hearing should be held by telephone conference call to determine if the Application should be dismissed on the grounds that the CSFRB or the Court has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The hearing would also hear submissions about whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

6The hearing was scheduled for August 25, 2016, by telephone conference call. The applicant participated and the respondent was represented by Dawn Dubois, counsel.

7The issues of greatest concern to the applicant relate to events in October 2014. His children were interviewed at their school by a CAS worker. After this, the worker attended at the home and took the children into custody, having determined that the applicant’s children were in need of protection in accordance with the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11.

The proceeding at the CFSRB

8The applicant made a complaint to the CFSRB about these and related issues. A hearing was held, which led to a “Settlement Agreement”. The Agreement indicated that the CAS provided explanations related to the applicant’s concerns “with no further action required”, although it was noted that the applicant might disagree with the explanations provided. There was then agreement established that included agreement about how matters would be dealt with in the future.

9The Agreement noted the applicant’s concerns and that he did not agree with the actions that had been taken, but stated that no further action was required. The Settlement Agreement went on to specify things that would be done subsequently, but did not make any findings or determinations about the things that had happened before. Those things are the substance of this Application. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Settlement Agreement appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

The proceedings before the Court

10The applicant does not dispute that, with one exception, discussed below, all of the applicant's allegations about things that he alleges the CAS has done that he believes are discriminatory and/or unfair or wrong, have been before the Court in multiple proceedings. I appreciate that the applicant believes that he has not been listened to, that the judges have failed to understand the importance of the issues, or have made incorrect decisions. However, as discussed at the hearing, this Tribunal does not have any power or jurisdiction to review decisions made by judges in the performance of their duties.

11The one thing that the Court may not have dealt with is the applicant's assertion that as a person with Metis heritage, he is entitled to the same protections and services under the Child and Family Services Act and the Regulations to that Act that would be available to a person with recognized “Indian status”. The applicant believes that this is a constitutional question that affects his rights. The respondent asserts that it has in fact largely treated the applicant as if he did have legal “status”. The applicant, however, argues that this did not happen initially and suggests that as a result, his constitutional rights have been violated.

12As discussed at the hearing, this Tribunal does not have the power or jurisdiction to deal with the Application of the Canadian Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unless they relate to an interpretation of the Human Rights Code.

13Under section 45.1 of the Code, an Application may be dismissed if another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. A finding that the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with does not require that the applicant agree with the way the issues were dealt with in the other proceeding.

14In this case the substance of the Application has been before the Court in a series of proceedings. The Court has continued to deal with issues that have arisen since the Application was filed, and these are ongoing. The substance of the Application has therefore been appropriately dealt with and the Application is dismissed on that basis.

15Because of this finding, it is not necessary to consider whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success if it were to proceed.