DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 97/14
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: GALINA KURDINA v. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD
BEFORE: LEITCH, SWINTON & NORDHEIMER JJ.
COUNSEL: G. Kurdina in person
M. Leighton, for the respondent, Human Rights Tribunal
A. Ceddia & L. Elliott, for the respondent, Toronto Police Services Board
HEARD at Toronto: October 23, 2014
ENDORSEMENT
1Ms. Kurdina seeks judicial review of the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dated December 4, 2013 that summarily dismissed her claim of discrimination based on disability. Ms. Kurdina’s claim arises from the failure of officers of the Toronto Police Service to investigate her complaints that she has been the victim of psychotronic mind control caused by weapons of electromagnetic energy.
2Ms. Kurdina has complained about these matters to the police for many years starting at least in 2006. The police have refused to investigate Ms. Kurdina’s claims. It is obvious that the police consider that Ms. Kurdina may be suffering from mental health issues.
3Ms. Kurdina eventually complained to the Human Rights Tribunal that the police were not investigating her claims because of their belief that she had mental health issues and thus were discriminating against her. The Tribunal, upon receipt of Ms. Kurdina’s application, determined that it would hold a summary hearing, pursuant to its Rules, with respect to it. The Tribunal is entitled to conduct a summary hearing regarding any application in order to determine if the application has any reasonable prospect of success.
4The Tribunal conducted the hearing on October 1, 2013 by telephone and Ms. Kurdina participated. Approximately two months later, the Tribunal dismissed Ms. Kurdina’s application. The Tribunal gave detailed reasons for its conclusion. The Tribunal noted that its role is to be concerned with substantive discrimination. The Tribunal does not aim to eliminate all differences in treatment. Further, the Tribunal held that the police had properly refused to investigate Ms. Kurdina’s complaints because the nature of those complaints did not constitute a crime, and not because of any assumption that Ms. Kurdina had a mental illness. Thus the Tribunal found that there was no reasonable prospect of success for Ms. Kurdina’s application.
5The standard of review regarding such decisions is one of reasonableness. Decisions of the Tribunal are entitled to the highest degree of deference: Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 at para. 10.
6We can see no error in the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in this case. Certainly the Tribunal’s decision cannot be seen to be an unreasonable one. Ms. Kurdina received a fair hearing at which she was allowed to provide materials and make submissions. There is therefore no basis upon which this court could interfere with, or set aside, that decision.
7The application for judicial review is dismissed. The respondents do not seek costs and none are awarded.
LEITCH J.
SWINTON J.
NORDHEIMER J.
DATE: