HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tadesse Gebremariam
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Gebremariam v. Toronto Police Services Board
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods and services because of race, colour and, ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The Application names numerous respondents. The Applicant alleges that the police covered up child abuse that was happening at a school. The Application indicates that the date of the last event is 1994 to present. The Application does not provide any further details.
3On May 25, 2016 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Applications (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons:
it appeared that it had been filed more than a year after the last incident of discrimination and that the applicant had not cited facts that constitute good faith within the meaning of section 34(1) of the Code;
one of the named respondents is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The HRTO 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; and
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 individuals who were named as additional respondents.
4Although given an opportunity to respond to the NOIDs the applicant did not provide any further specifics about the alleged incidents of discrimination that were committed by the individuals who were named as individual respondents or any details with respect to the allegation against the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
5In response to the issue of whether the Application was filed more than one year after the date of the last incident, the applicant wrote a letter to which he attached a letter he had written to a number of police chiefs in 2012 and 2015 in which he repeats his request that the police investigate his allegation that his son was a victim of abuse around 1994. The letter written in response to the NOID does not provide any reasons for the delay in filing the Application.
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 power to address the issues raised in the Application. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
7The Tribunal’s power is limited to enforcement of the Code which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment, services, contracts) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code such as age, race, marital status or disability. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code. Therefore, for the Tribunal to have the power to consider an Application, that Application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s behaviour to the applicant’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.
Allegation against Ontario Superior Court of Justice
8The Tribunal may dismiss an application without providing an opportunity for an oral hearing if the Tribunal determines that it is plain and obvious that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application
9In my view, it is plain and obvious that the allegations against the by Ontario Superior Court of Justice must be dismissed because the allegations relate entirely to the decisions made by the Court who denied to grant the applicant’s motion to amend the Statement of Claim. It is not the role of the Tribunal to determine appeals of decisions made a court. The Tribunal has found that it does not have jurisdiction to hear Applications with respect to tribunals or courts in the exercise of their judicial functions or decision making based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp., 2009 HRTO 2180.
10From a review of the Application it appears that the applicant’s only concern is that the Judge refused to grant the order she requested on the motion to the Court. The conduct she is complaining about is clearly judicial activity contemplated by the doctrine of judicial immunity.
Allegations against the Individuals Named as Respondents
11I find it plain and obvious that the Application against the named individual respondents must be dismissed. The Application does not identify any acts of alleged discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The Application as against these respondents is therefore dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Allegations against Toronto Police Services Board
12On December 1, 2015, the applicant filed an Application against the Toronto Police Services Board in which the same allegations with respect to its cover up of abuse that the applicant’s son had experienced while at school around or before 1994 were made.
13In Tribunal decision 2015 HRTO 248, the Application that had been filed on December 1, 2015, noted in paragraph 9 above was dismissed on the basis that it was out of time. The Tribunal found that the Application was out of time and it is plain and obvious that the applicant has plead no facts which would support a finding that the delay was incurred in good faith.
14Although the applicant has written to the chief of the Toronto police in 2015, he is only repeating his requests that were made previously. This Application does not raise any new allegation of discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board. The allegations made are the same as those that were dismissed for delay in decision 2015 HRTO 248.
15In my view it is plain and obvious that the final allegation contained in this Application occurred at some time in 2012 or earlier which is at least four years prior to the date when this Application was filed. The applicant’s explanation in response to the NOID does not provide any reasons for the delay. Accordingly I find that there is no explanation, reasonable or otherwise, for the delay.
16For all of these reasons I find that it is plain and obvious that this Application is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide and accordingly it is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of July, 2016.
“Signed By”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair