Lozier v. Miskokon, 2017 HRTO 996

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeff Lozier Applicant

-and-

Justice of the Peace Miskokon and A. Coughlan Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Jeff Lozier Applicant

-and-

Yasir Naqvi Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Jeff Lozier Applicant

-and-

Kevin Flynn Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: August 3, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 996 Indexed as: Lozier v. Miskokon

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeff Lozier, Applicant Self-represented

1The applicant filed these three related Applications alleging discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). Specifically, all three Applications relate to the applicant's attempt to raise complaints and take action against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB").

2In the Application in file no. 2017-27226-I, the applicant alleged that a Justice of the Peace violated the Code in relation to their actions and decisions in a private prosecution brought by the applicant against the WSIB. He also alleged that the personal respondent who he claims is the "local provincial attorney general" also violated the Code. Although the applicant referred to her in this way, the personal respondent is in fact an Assistant Crown Attorney at the Sarnia Crown Attorney's Office.

3In the Application in file no. 2017-27658-I, the applicant alleged that Yasir Naqvi, the Attorney General of Ontario, violated the Code when he failed to appropriately respond to a letter the applicant sent to him complaining about the WSIB system in Ontario.

4In the Application in file no. 2017-27664-I, the applicant alleged that MPP Kevin Flynne violated the Code when he failed to appropriately respond to a letter the applicant sent to him complaining about the WSIB system in Ontario.

5On May 1 and June 12, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant three Notices of Intent to Dismiss ("NOID") his Applications on the basis that they are outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In the NOIDs, the Tribunal set out various reasons for why the three Applications appeared to fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

6The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOIDs in which he opposed the dismissal of his Applications.

Analysis and Decision

7An 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.

Application 2017-27226-I

8It is plain and obvious that the above-noted Application falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. First, the Application as against the Justice of the Peace falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to the doctrine of judicial immunity. The doctrine of judicial immunity prohibits legal proceedings against 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 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.

9Second, the Application against the personal respondent falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction as it does not fall within any of the social areas covered by the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all relationships and all difficulties that may occur in those relationships. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the social areas of "employment", "goods, services and facilities", "accommodation" (housing), "contracts" and "membership in vocational associations". The Application alleges discrimination in services. However, the Tribunal has repeatedly held that the relationship between an applicant and opposing counsel is not a service relationship within the meaning of the Code. See Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390.

10For these reasons, it is plain and obvious that Application no. 2017-27226-I falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Applications 2017-27658-I and 2017-27664-I

11In my view, it is plain and obvious that both of these Applications also fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Both Applications assert that the respondents failed to appropriately respond to the applicant's letters of complaint about the WSIB system.

12The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over violations of rights with respect to the social areas and the grounds set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness. The applicant failed to allege any acts of discrimination linked to his disability in these two Applications.

13For these reasons, it is plain and obvious that these two Applications also fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Order

14For the above reasons, these three Applications are dismissed.