Vezina v. Elections Ontario, 2016 HRTO 994

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gregory Vezina Applicant

-and-

Elections Ontario, Liberal Party of Ontario, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, New Democratic Party of Ontario, Green Party of Ontario, Town of Whitby, Whitby Chamber of Commerce, Abilities Centre, Lorne Coe, Elizabeth Roy, Niki Lundquist, and Stacey Leadbetter Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: July 28, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 994 Indexed as: Vezina v. Elections Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gregory Vezina, Applicant Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment and services because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant claims he was discriminated against because he was excluded from taking part in two candidate debates in advance of the Whitby-Oshawa provincial by-election. The applicant is the candidate for the “None of the Above Party of Ontario”.

2He named as respondents to the Application Elections Ontario, the four major parties whose candidates took part in the debates, the candidates from each of these parties, the Town of Whitby and the Whitby Chamber of Commerce who appear to have organized one of the debates, and the Abilities Center which provided the venue for one of the debates.

3In addition to filing his Application, the applicant has filed a civil claim in which, among other things, he alleged that the respondents violated his rights under ss. 2, 3, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).

FINDINGS

4At 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. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s claims against the respondents do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Code.

5The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over the anti-discrimination protections set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness. It also does not have jurisdiction over alleged violations of other legislation, constitutional instruments such as the Charter, or international treaties.

6The bases of the applicant’s claims are two-fold: (1) that the respondents discriminated against him because of creed and (2) that the respondents violated his Charter rights and/or rights under certain United Nations (“UN”) covenants.

Creed-based allegations

7I find it plain and obvious that the applicant’s allegations of discrimination do not engage the ground of creed, as that term is interpreted under the Code.

8The applicant describes his creed as his belief that “registered party leaders and all candidates have the right to be able to communicate with electors during and in between elections.” This belief or opinion does not fall under the Code’s protections against discrimination based on creed.

9“Creed” is not defined in the Code. The term includes, but is not limited to, "religious creed" or "religion.” Even if the term is broader than religion, it is not without limits. Not every belief, opinion, expression, practice or matter of conscience is a creed under the Code.

10In its Policy on Preventing Discrimination Based on Creed, the Ontario Human Rights Commission defines creed as a belief system that may have the following characteristics:

a. Is sincerely, freely and deeply held;

b. Is integrally linked to a person’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment;

c. Is a particular, comprehensive and overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices;

d. Addresses ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a creator and/or a higher or different order of existence; and

e. Has some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief.

11It has long been held in Ontario human rights case law that the concept of “creed” as interpreted under the Code does not include one’s political point of view. The Divisional Court has stated that “mere political opinion is not within the meaning of “creed”. See Jazairi v. Ontario (Human Rights Comm.), 1997 CanLII 12445 (ON SC), at para. 41. In upholding the decision in Jazairi, above, the Ontario Court of Appeal left open the question of whether or not a “political perspective, such as communism, that is made up of a recognizable cohesive belief system or structure” might constitute a “creed”. See Jazairi v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 1999 CanLII 3744 (ON CA), at para. 27. However, the applicant’s political opinion about the right of candidates to communicate with electors does not fall within the exception left undetermined by the Court of Appeal.

12Based on this case law, I find that the applicant’s allegations do not engage the ground of creed under the Code.

Allegations re. [Charter](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html) and UN covenants

13The applicant also appears to allege that the respondents violated the Charter, in particular his democratic rights under s. 3 of the Charter, as well as various UN covenants.

14The Tribunal consistently has held that it does not have the authority to decide stand-alone constitutional issues such as claims under the Charter. See, for example, MacLennan v. Ontario (Transportation), 2013 HRTO 714 at paras. 10-11. In order to claim that his Charter rights have been violated, the applicant must bring a civil claim in court, which is what he has done. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over his claim that the respondents have violated his Charter rights. Likewise, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims relating to UN covenants.

ORDER

15For the above reasons, it is plain and obvious that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the allegations made in the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.