Backovic v. Muir, 2016 HRTO 940

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zoran Backovic

Applicant

-and-

David Muir

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: July 19, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 940

Indexed as: Backovic v. Muir

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Zoran Backovic, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on April 6, 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 May 18, 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 June 8, 2016 the Tribunal received the applicant’s submissions.

5The applicant appears to be alleging that the respondent discriminated against him when the respondent issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) in respect of file 2015-21696-I (previous Application) setting the previous Application down for a summary hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The applicant alleges that it was discriminatory to set the previous Application down for a summary hearing by teleconference because he advised the Tribunal that he would be disadvantaged because he is a “non-native speaker of English”.

6The summary hearing was not conducted by teleconference but rather in person on June 16, 2016. It resulted in a final decision 2016 HRTO 898 dismissing the previous Application for no reasonable prospect of success.

Analysis and Decision

7The 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.

8In 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 his adjudicative role. In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 the Tribunal emphasized that 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.

9The applicant’s main allegation against the respondent is with his decision to have the Registrar schedule a summary hearing by teleconference. The case management decisions made at each stage in the Tribunal’s hearing process are subject to change at any time. In this case, the summary hearing was ultimately held in person. In his response to the NOID, the applicant expanded his allegations to include personal allegations against the respondent which are specious. The applicant has taken the statements of the respondent from two CAD’s and applied an interpretation which is based solely on the applicant’s suspicions and perceptions.

10The decisions by the respondent 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.

11For these reasons I would dismiss this Application.