Simms v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 HRTO 64

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Garfield Simms

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Town of Parry Sound

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: January 14, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 64

Indexed as: Simms v. Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Garfield Simms, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Respondent

Sandra Nishikawa, Counsel

The Town of Parry Sound, Respondent

Charles Loopstra, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability.

2The applicant alleges that he fell ill on June 29, 2015. He was scheduled for a trial for a traffic related charge on June 30, 2015 in Parry Sound. The applicant states that he advised the Court of his illness and the trial was adjourned until July 14, 2015. The applicant states that he asked the Court for an adjournment of the July 14, 2015 date because of medication he was taking and was told to call the Court after July 14, 2015 to find out if his request was approved. The applicant did so and learned that he had been convicted of the traffic offence.

3The respondent Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General (the “Ministry”) filed a Response and takes the position that it is not responsible for the operation of the Court in Parry Sound and is not a proper party to the Application. The Town of Parry Sound (the “Town”) also filed a Response in which it acknowledged that the applicant sought an adjournment of the July 14, 2015 Court date and did not appear in Court that day. The presiding Justice of the Peace was aware of the adjournment request, but the Court convicted the applicant regarding the charges. The Town submitted that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to address his claims and that the proper form in the Ontario Court of Justice.

4The Tribunal delivered the Town’s Response to the applicant. In the cover letter, dated December 10, 2015, the Tribunal noted the Town’s position that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application because the Application relates to a decision of the Provincial Offences Court. The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the Town’s Response by filing a Reply (Form 3).

5The applicant filed a Reply on December 29, 2015. The applicant did not address whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with his claim. Rather, the applicant reiterated that he asked for an adjournment of the July 14, 2015 trial date. The applicant submitted that the Town, through the courthouse, breached his right to be accommodated.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

7I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

8The doctrine of adjudicative immunity prohibits legal proceedings against judicial and quasi-judicial actors that are based on their actions as adjudicators or decision-makers. The doctrine is rooted in the principle of judicial independence, the purpose of which is to ensure that judicial and quasi-judicial actors are free to execute their decision-making duties with independence and without fear of consequences. See Taucar v. University of Western Ontario, 2013 HRTO 597; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180; and Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208.

9In this case, while the applicant named the Town and the Ministry as respondents, the applicant’s complaint is in fact about a decision of the Court not to grant him an adjournment and to convict him for a traffic related offence. The doctrine of adjudicative immunity applies to the Court’s decision and, accordingly, it is plain and obvious that this Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

10The Application is dismissed.