Predie v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 HRTO 126

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Predie Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Karen Wallace Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: January 27, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 126 Indexed as: Predie v Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Daniel Gary Predie, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods and services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2On December 1, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") because it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction to decide because:

• 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.

• you appear to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. The HRTO 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. See for example Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208; Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115.

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.

4The applicant responded, however, his submissions did not address either issue in the NOID.

5The Tribunal may dismiss an application without providing an opportunity to make oral submissions where it is "plain and obvious" the application is outside its 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 a decision by a Vice-chair of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) to direct an in person hearing of an application before the LTB. The conduct the applicant complains about is clearly a quasi-judicial decision protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

7The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear applications with respect to adjudicators in the exercise of their judicial functions or decision making based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp., 2009 HRTO 2180.

8For these reasons this Application is dismissed.