HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
William Sheehan
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Attorney General
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Sheehan v Ontario (Attorney General)
Written Submissions By
William Sheehan, Applicant ) On his own behalf
1This is an Application filed on January 11, 2016, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to contracts and the provision of services because of disability and family status. The Application contains almost 800 pages of allegations and submissions. The Application has not yet been delivered to the respondent.
2On February 4, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) indicating that it appears the Application is outside the Tribunal`s jurisdiction for the following reasons:
a. A review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent(s). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless the unfairness is connected, in whole or in part, to one of the grounds specifically set out in Part I of the Code (e.g. race, disability, sex, etc.); see, for example, Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389).
b. The completed Application does not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal has the jurisdiction (power) to resolve.
c. The applicant appears to be challenging the decision or outcome of an adjudicative process. 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.
3On March 2, 2016, the applicant filed 68 pages of written submissions in response to the NOID.
4On March 11, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), directing the applicant to file, within 14 days of the CAD, a concise statement clearly and very briefly describing only the allegations of discrimination based on disability and family status pursuant to the Code. The applicant filed his submissions in response to the CAD on March 23, 2016.
APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS
5The applicant alleges that he is the president of corporation 1265589 Ontario Limited (“the corporation”) and that this corporation is, as a shell company, legally interchangeable with himself. He alleges that all acts of discrimination that were made against the corporation were also against him personally. The applicant alleges discrimination against the corporation based on disability as follows:
a. On January 15, 2015, Rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194, had a discriminatory impact on the corporation;
b. On January 15, 2015, Ontario’s “Fee Waiver Rule” had a discriminatory impact on the corporation;
c. From Feburary 1, 2013 to Febrary 1, 2015, section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sch B, had a discriminatory impact on the corporation;
d. From approximately February 2, 2015 until now, section 34(1) of the Code had a discriminatory impact on the corporation.
6The applicant also alleges discrimination based on family status.
7Further details of the allegations are outlined below.
Rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
8The applicant alleges that court clerks and a representative of the Ministry of the Attorney General (“MAG”) enforced Rule 15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to accommodate the corporation.
9Rule 15.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that a party to a proceeding who is under a disability or is a corporation shall be represented by a lawyer. Rule 15.01 also provides that a corporation may be exempted from this rule with leave of the court.
10The applicant alleges that the corporation was prevented from commencing court proceedings because it is a corporation that is not represented by a lawyer. The applicant maintains that the corporation is poor and cannot afford a lawyer. The applicant argues that poverty is a disability and that this unfair treatment is discriminatory because of a disability. The applicant also argues that because of the discrimination, the corporation was prevented from claiming monetary compensation through court proceedings and from participating fully in society.
Fee Waiver Rule
11The applicant alleges that the Ontario fee waiver rule, which allows some individuals, but not corporations, to request a court fee waiver is discriminatory. The applicant maintains that the fee waiver rule presumes that corporations are rich. The applicant argues that since the corporation is poor and was not accommodated by having its fees waived, the corporation was discriminated against based on disability.
The Limitations Act
12The applicant alleges that he tried to meet the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act but was unable to submit his claim in time because Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure and the fee waiver rule were not modified to accommodate the corporation’s circumstances. The applicant argues that this only prolongued and exacerbated the corporation’s disability by preventing it from claiming financial relief within the timelines provided in the Limitations Act.
section 34(1) of the Code
13The applicant alleges that employees of MAG and of this Tribunal enforced the one year limit to file applications under section 34(1) of the Code, without accommodating the corporation’s disability. The applicant argues that the corporation is poor and cannot afford a lawyer. Because of limited resources, it is difficult for the applicant to meet the time limitations. He alleges that he was not granted an extension to file the corporation’s application even though he lacks formal legal training. He argues that the corporation was discriminated against based on disability because it is poor.
Discrimination Based on Family Status
14In addition to the above, the applicant alleges discrimination based on family status. However, the applicant failed to present a clear factual basis and arguments in support of this allegation.
Decision and Analysis
15At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal must consider whether the application relates to a prohibited ground of discrimination with respect to a social area covered by the Code.
Discrimination based on Disability
16The applicant argues that the corporation was discriminated because it is poor and poverty is a disability.
17Disability is defined at section 10(1) of the Code as:
(a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device,
(b) a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability,
(c) a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language,
(d) a mental disorder, or
(e) an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.
18First, I note that the definition of disability under the Code relates to either physical and/or mental impairment. A corporation is a legal entity and not a person who is capable of having a physical and/or mental impairment as contemplated by the Code.
19Secondly, all of the applicant’s allegations relate to the fact that the applicant and the corporation are poor. Poverty is not an enumerated ground under the Code and this Tribunal has never interpreted the term “disability” to include poverty.
20Thirdly, many of the disctinctions relied upon by the applicant relate to the fact that corporations do not have the same rights as individuals, such as that they do not benefit from the fee waiver rule. However, all of these distinctions relate to their status as a corporation and are not based on a prohibited ground under the Code.
Discrimination Based on Family Status
21The applicant alleges discrimination based on family status, which is defined as being in a parent child relationship. However, the applicant has failed to explain any basis in support of this allegation.
ORDER
22Having considered the matter I am of the view that the Application relates to the applicant’s perception of the unfairness of various Rules and laws that distinguish rights and obligations between personal and corporate litigants. Though the applicant has attempted to characterize these allegations as falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it is my view that it is plain and obvious that a prohibited ground as defined by the Code is not engaged in this Application.
23As such the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of April, 2016.
“Signed By”
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair