Backovic v. Pickel, 2016 HRTO 494

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zoran Backovic

Applicant

-and-

Jo-Anne Pickel

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: April 15, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 494

Indexed as: Backovic v Pickel

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Zoran Backovic, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on March 14, 2016 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against in respect of goods, services and facilities on the basis of place origin. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ("Tribunal") has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application ("NOID") to the applicant.

2The Tribunal sent a NOID dated March 30, 2016 to the applicant. The NOID stated, in part, that the respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The Tribunal 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.

3The NOID also advised the applicant that 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. 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).

4The Tribunal requested that the applicant provide written submissions responding to the issues identified in the NOID within 30 days. On April 10, 2016 the Tribunal received the applicant's submissions.

5The applicant appears to be alleging that the respondent discriminated against him when she issued a Case Assessment Direction for the Registrar to schedule a Summary Hearing to determine whether the applicant's Application should be dismissed on the basis (1) that the actions complained of are covered by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity and/or (2) that the Application stands no reasonable prospect of success.

6The applicant also appears to be alleging discrimination by the respondent because she did not list all of his allegations in her Case Assessment Direction.

Analysis and Decision

7The applicant responded to the NOID. In his submissions he states that his allegations are not against any court of tribunal but against Jo-Anne Pickel personally. He recognizes that the respondent was acting as Vice-Chair at the time she issued her Case Assessment Direction but submits that because he did not bring his application against the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal must have jurisdiction to hear his application against her as a citizen covered by the Code.

8The applicant provided no submissions to further explain how the alleged unfairness he experienced is connected to his place of origin.

9The 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.

10In 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 her 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 adjudicative bodies because to do so would usurp the function of the Divisional Court.

11In this case, the applicant's main allegation against the respondent is with her decision to have the Registrar schedule a Summary Hearing and with the allegations that she listed in the Case Assessment Direction. These decisions fall into the category of decisions that are made by an adjudicative body. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of an adjudicative tribunal.

12For these reasons I would dismiss this Application