Johnson v. Cornwall Court, 2016 HRTO 376

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wieslin Johnson Applicant

-and-

Cornwall Court Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Genevieve Debane Date: March 23, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 376 Indexed as: Johnson v. Cornwall Court

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant names the "Cornwall Court" as the sole respondent. The Application has not yet been delivered to the respondent.

2On February 17, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") the Application on the basis that it is plain and obvious that its subject-matter does not appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. On March 8, 2016, the Tribunal received written submissions from the applicant.

3In the Application, the applicant recounts interactions that he had with a prosecutor at the Cornwall Court with respect to the prosecution of a traffic ticket. The Application also recounts some of his interactions with the presiding judge. The applicant takes issue with the fine that was ultimately imposed on him.

4In the submissions filed by the applicant in response to the NOID, the applicant does not address the jurisdictional issues raised by the Tribunal.

5Having considered the matter I am of the view that the allegations raised by the applicant do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have supervisory authority over the Courts. In this case, the applicant has complained about the conduct of the hearing and the ultimate decision rendered by the presiding judge. 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. See for example Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208; Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115.

6Similarly, though the prosecutor is not named as a respondent to the Application, the Tribunal has held that the actions of prosecutors in the course of carrying out their duties are in most cases not "services" within the meaning of s. 1 of the Code and are not subject to the Code because of prosecutorial immunity: see Inward v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 2127.

7For these reasons the Application is dismissed.