Strachan v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2016 HRTO 381

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kathleen Strachan

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Labour Relations Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: March 23, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 381

Indexed as: Strachan v. Ontario Labour Relations Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kathleen Strachan, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on January 14, 2016 that alleges discrimination with respect to the provision of goods and services. In the narrative of her Application, the applicant discusses the cancellation of a mediation by the respondent and a decision issued by the respondent in which a portion of her application that was filed with the respondent was dismissed.

2On February 9, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

• 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 by March 10, 2016.

4The applicant responded to the NOID. Her submissions repeated her allegation that the respondent cancelled a mediation and indicated that it was at her request. She alleges that she did not request that the mediation be cancelled and that she had requested that it be held by phone to address her disability. She alleges that she has requested an addendum to the cancellation notice and that this request has been ignored.

5The Tribunal may dismiss an application without providing an opportunity for an oral hearing if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. However, an application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s 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 the decisions of the respondent in its adjudicative role. In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 the Tribunal emphasised it is not the role of the Tribunal to sit in review of the decisions of other adjudicative bodies because to do so would usurp the function of the Divisional Court.

7In this case the applicant’s main allegation that she did not request that the mediation be cancelled and that the notice of cancellation indicated that she had made the request to cancel. She also appears to disagree with the decision of the respondent to dismiss part of her application filed with the respondent. These decisions, made by the respondent, fall into the category of decisions that are made by an adjudicative body in another proceeding. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative tribunal.

8For these reasons I would dismiss this Application.