CITATION: Martinez v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 2723
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 087/23
DATE: 20240515
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Myers, Davies, and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
ALEX MARTINEZ
Applicant
– and –
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO (HRTO) and ROBERT GAUTHIER
Respondents
Alex Martinez on his own behalf
Brian A. Blumenthal for the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: May 14, 2024
BY THE COURT:
ENDORSEMENT
BACKGROUND
[1] Mr. Martinez asks the court to review a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing summarily his claim against the respondent Robert Gauthier.
[2] Mr. Gauthier took no part in the proceeding. The Tribunal took no position on the merits and quite properly limited its involvement. In written submissions, it explained its statutory role and provided some helpful case law precedents concerning the manner by which this court has reviewed its decisions in the past.
THE FACTS
[3] Mr. Martinez says that on January 27, 2020, he was unlawfully removed from the Niagara Falls Convention Centre while trying to use an ATM that was available to the public. He says that Mr. Gauthier was the security guard who told him to leave the premises.
MR. MARTINEZ’S CLAIM
[4] Mr. Martinez brought a claim against Mr. Gauthier for discrimination under the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H.19. Mr. Martinez claimed that he was lawfully entitled to be present in the convention centre to use the ATM. He argued that there are no provisions of the Human Rights Code nor the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46, that support his removal from the convention centre by Mr. Gauthier.
[5] Mr. Martinez claimed that he was discriminated against as a reprisal. This is prohibited under s. 8 of the Code.
[6] The Tribunal communicated with Mr. Martinez to flesh out his claim. He asserted that he was discriminated against by being treated differently than others at the convention centre. But he specifically denied that the discrimination was based on a prohibited ground listed in s. 1 of the Code.
[7] On October 13, 2022, the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Martinez’s complaint summarily because it found Mr. Martinez’s complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction. On January 12, 2023, the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Martinez’s request for reconsideration of the decision.
[8] Mr. Martinez now asks this court to find that the Tribunal erred in dismissing his claim.
JURISDICTION
[9] This Court has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Tribunal pursuant to ss. 2(1) and 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[10] In reviewing decisions of the Tribunal the court must consider whether the decision is reasonable. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65; Ontario (Health) v. Association of Ontario Midwives, 2022 ONCA 458.
[11] To the extent any issue of procedural fairness has been identified, the issue of whether there has been any breach of procedural fairness is to be determined in light of the factors set out in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.
ANALYSIS
[12] We find the Tribunal’s decision was reasonable. It was plain and obvious that Mr. Martinez’s complaint did not state a claim that could amount to a violation of the Code even if he proved that everything he claimed was true.
[13] The Code does not prohibit all unequal treatment. To offend s. 1 of the Code, a person must be denied equal treatment with respect to goods, services, or facilities, “because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.” As the Tribunal stated at para. 6, it “does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unrelated to the Code.”
[14] It follows that by failing to claim that Mr. Gauthier discriminated against him based on a prohibited ground, Mr. Martinez did not make a claim that could succeed before the Tribunal.
[15] Similarly, Mr. Martinez did not identify any basis to say that Mr. Gauthier’s actions were a reprisal for anything done by Mr. Martinez to claim or enforce his rights under the Code. The adjudicator made no error in finding his claim as written and explained to the Tribunal could not succeed in establishing a breach of the prohibition against reprisals under s. 8 of the Code.
[16] In oral argument, Mr. Martinez submitted the Tribunal exercised its discretion inappropriately to “weed out” his application. To the extent this was a complaint about the Tribunal’s summary process, the Tribunal is entitled to follow the procedure set out in r. 13.2 of its procedural rules for dealing with preliminary jurisdictional issues to resolve complaints. This process allowed Mr. Martinez the opportunity to provide written submissions in which he acknowledged his complaint was not related to a prohibited ground under the Code. There was no procedural unfairness in this approach: Wu v. City of Toronto and Toronto Ombudsman, 2023 ONSC 6192, at paras. 40-41
[17] The decision to dismiss the claim summarily was transparent, intelligible and justified. It was both reasonable and procedurally fair and will not be set aside.
OUTCOME
[18] The application is dismissed without costs.
Myers J
Davies J
O’Brien J
Released: May 15, 2024
CITATION: Martinez v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 2723
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 087/23
DATE: 20240515
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Myers, Davies, and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
ALEX MARTINEZ
Applicant
– and –
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO (HRTO) and ROBERT GAUTHIER
Respondents
REASONS FOR decision
The Court
Released: May 15, 2024