Court File and Parties
CITATION: D’Orazio, Cardile v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2014 ONSC 7007
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 277/14
DATE: 20141203
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SPENCE, SACHS AND NORDHEIMER JJ.
BETWEEN:
EUGENE D’ORAZIO and CARLO CARDILE Applicants
– and –
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondent
In Person
Sunil Gurmukh, for the Respondent, Ontario Human Rights Commission
Margaret L. Leighton, for the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: December 3, 2014
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SACHS J. (ORALLY)
[1] The applicants now seem to appreciate that the challenge to the Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination that they wish to pursue, must be pursued by way of a court application.
[2] The Tribunal, as a creature of statute, has only the jurisdiction given to it by the legislature. In this instance, the Tribunal correctly found, as set out in its Reasons, that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the free-standing challenge to the Commission’s Policy that the applicants brought.
[3] For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
SPENCE J.
[4] I have endorsed the back of the Application Record, “For the reasons given orally, the application is dismissed without costs.”
SACHS J.
SPENCE J.
NORDHEIMER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 3, 2014
Date of Release: December 8, 2014
CITATION: D’Orazio, Cardile v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2014 ONSC 7007
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 277/14
DATE: 20141203
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SPENCE, SACHS AND NORDHEIMER JJ.
BETWEEN:
EUGENE D’ORAZIO and CARLO CARDILE Applicants
– and –
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 3, 2014
Date of Release: December 8, 2014