Citation and Court Information
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Eugene Laho, Applicant
-and-
Metro Ontario Inc., Unifor Local 414, Human Rights Tribunal Ontario, Ontario Commissioner of Human Rights, and Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, Respondents
BEFORE: FL Myers J
COUNSEL: Eugene Laho for himself (in writing)
READ: August 27, 2024
Endorsement
Introduction
1Mr. Laho seeks judicial review of the decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal dismissing his claim against his employer and union and denying reconsideration of the initial decision to dismiss his claim.
Background
2On July 29, 2024, the Registrar of the court gave notice to Mr. Laho under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, that the court was considering dismissing his claims against the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. These bodies and people were not parties to the decisions of the tribunal that are under review.
3The Registrar’s notice advised Mr. Laho of his right to deliver written submissions to explain why his claims against the three named respondents should be allowed to proceed.
4Mr. Laho delivered written submissions dated July 31, 2024. In his submissions, Mr. Laho sets out the acts of his employer and union to which he objects. He submits that steps were taken against him in violation of his human rights, workers’ rights statutes, the applicable collective agreements, and the Charter of Rights.
5Mr. L:aho also says that no one helped his as they were required to do under the foregoing laws and also under United Nations conventions.
6Mr. Laho also asserts that he was denied accommodations to which he was entitled by law due to his disabilities.
7Mr. Laho required accommodations before the tribunal and before the court. I have reviewed the list of accommodations that he seeks. Without commenting at this time on the validity of every one of his requests, I am satisfied that this piece of the proceeding before the court has been conducted as he requests. In particular, he was given express, clear, non-aggressive notice of the issue. He was provided with clearly stated procedural steps broken down into tasks and deadlines in writing. He was provided ample time to respond as he responded well before the deadline and made no request for any additional time or accommodation.
8In para. 17 of Mr. Laho’s written submission, he explains that when he made his request for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint to the Vice Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal, he also asked the Integrity Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission to intervene to protects his rights. They refused. He says that they were required to do intervene to help him and that their refusal to become involved in overturning the dismissal of his complaint was itself a violation of the Charter of Rights and other legal obligations upon them.
9Mr. Laho has delivered a Notice of Constitutional Question with his application for judicial review. It sets out his complaints against his employer and union. It provide significant details of the laws and constitutional provisions relied upon my Mr. Laho.
10The Notice of Constitutional Question does not mention the Ontario Human Rights Commission or its Commissioner. Para. 11 of Mr. Laho’s Notice of Constitutional Question says:
- Office of the Integrity of Commissioner of Ontario refused to intervene when HRTO violated Eugene Laho’s Section 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 Human Rights Code 46.3.
Analysis
11This court proceeding is an application for judicial review of two decision of the Human Rights Tribunal to which Mr. Laho objects. The tribunal is properly a party to the proceeding. None of the other governmental actors are necessary or proper parties to this proceeding. They were not parties to the proceeding before the tribunal and they were not the decision-makers whose decisions are under review.
12If Mr. Laho seeks a legal remedy against the others for violating his legal or constitutional rights, he remains free to try to sue them or take other proceedings as he feels appropriate. But, recognizing that Mr. Laho is not a lawyer and may have limited knowledge for the substantive and procedural law, I have tried to consider his documents from a generous perspective to consider if they raise any issues that could, if perhaps restated, amount to a basis for legal relief by Mr. Laho against Integrity of Commissioner of Ontario, Ontario Human Rights Commission, or its Commissioner in this or another proceeding. I can see no basis in law, whether statutory or constitutional, whereby any of these officials owed duties to Mr. Laho to intervene in the reconsideration of the dismissal of his human rights claim or at all. Nothing in any of the statutes, constitutional documents, or UN Conventions cited by Mr. Laho or of which I am aware creates a legal obligation on the Integrity of Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, or its Commissioner, to intervene in the legal proceedings between Mr. Laho and his employer and union.
13Mr. Laho has exercised his rights to bring a claim before the Human Rights Tribunal; to seek reconsideration of the tribunal’s decision; and now to see judicial review of the dismissal both requests. The latter is all that is properly before the court in this application.
Disposition
14The inclusion of the Integrity of Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and its Commissioner in this proceeding cannot succeed and is therefore “frivolous” within the meaning of Rule 2.1.01. I therefore dismiss this application solely as against Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and its Commissioner.
FL Myers J
Date: August 27, 2024