Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al., (2008) 236 O.A.C. 110 (DC)

• Judge: Ferrier, Molloy and Linhares de Sousa, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: April 15, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2008), 236 O.A.C. 110 (DC)

Diocese of Toronto v. HRC (2008), 236 O.A.C. 110 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.048

The Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto et al. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission et al.

(408/07)

Indexed As: Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Ferrier, Molloy and Linhares de Sousa, JJ.

April 30, 2008.

Summary:

The complainant had been accepted as a postulant by the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto (the Diocese). After the two year training and preparation period, the Diocese did not accept the complainant for ordination. He filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, alleging employment discrimination. After determining that the relationship between the complainant and the Diocese might fall within the definition of "services", the Commission amended the complaint to add services as an additional area of discrimination and referred the complaint to a tribunal. The Diocese sought an order to quash the decision referring the complaint and to prohibit the tribunal from hearing the complaint.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 7062

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Preliminary issues - The complainant had been accepted as a postulant by the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto (the Diocese) - After the training and preparation period, the Diocese did not accept the complainant for ordination - He filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, alleging employment discrimination - After determining that the relationship between the complainant and the Diocese might fall within the definition of "services", the Commission amended the complaint to add services as an additional area of discrimination - The complaint was referred to a tribunal - Asserting that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the Diocese sought an order to quash the decision referring the complaint and to prohibit the tribunal from hearing the complaint - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application - The court rejected the argument that the question of whether the relationship between the Diocese and the complainant fell within the meaning of "services" raised a preliminary jurisdictional issue that should be determined by the court - There was a clear jurisdictional issue raised - It was not a pure question of law - A proper analysis could only be done on a factual record - Those determinations were best made by the tribunal, which would have the advantage of hearing live evidence - Further, the tribunal had special expertise - See paragraphs 3 to 7.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - General - The complainant had been accepted as a postulant by the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto (the Diocese) - After the training and preparation period, the Diocese did not accept the complainant for ordination - He filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, alleging employment discrimination - After determining that the relationship between the complainant and the Diocese might fall within the definition of "services", the Commission amended the complaint to add services as an additional area of discrimination - The complaint was referred to a tribunal - Asserting that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the Diocese sought an order to quash the decision referring the complaint and to prohibit the tribunal from hearing the complaint - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application - The court rejected the argument that because the Commission had indicated that it would not proceed on the grounds of employment discrimination, there was nothing left of the complaint - Commission staff had no authority to dictate the basis on which a complaint was referred nor could they limit the tribunal's jurisdiction or authority - Further, the Commission had referred the complaint's "subject matter" to the tribunal - This included both employment and the provision of services - The Diocese had full notice that "services" were included in the complaint - There was no unfairness to the Diocese - See paragraphs 8 to 13.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - General - The complainant had been accepted as a postulant by the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto (the Diocese) - After the training and preparation period, the Diocese did not accept the complainant for ordination - He filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, alleging employment discrimination - After determining that the relationship between the complainant and the Diocese might fall within the definition of "services", the Commission amended the complaint to add services as an additional area of discrimination - The Commission's Case Analysis Report also raised the issue of discriminatory treatment during the postulancy period - The complaint was referred to a tribunal - Asserting that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed, the Diocese sought an order to quash the decision referring the complaint and to prohibit the tribunal from hearing the complaint - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application - The court rejected the argument that because the Commission had indicated that it would not challenge the Diocese's decision not to accept the complainant for ordination, there was nothing left of the complaint - It was not reasonable to characterize the complaint as relating solely to that one action - The investigation and the Case Analysis Report raised allegations of discrimination that went beyond that one act - A written complaint was not in the nature of an information or indictment - The tribunal was not limited to its strict wording - Subject to fairness, a complaint could be amended during a hearing to add new grounds or allegations - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Civil Rights - Topic 7103

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Complaint - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 7069 ].

Cases Noticed:

Roosma and Weller et al. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 84; 66 O.R.(2d) 18 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ontario College of Art et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 393; 11 O.R.(3d) 798 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ressel v. Board of Directors of Chiropractic (Ont.) (1990), 41 O.A.C. 321 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Cousens v. Canadian Nurses Association (1981), 2 C.H.R.R. D/365 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), refd to. [para. 15].

Smith v. Mardana Ltd. (2002), 44 C.H.R.R. D/142 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), revd. (2005), 52 C.H.R.R. D/89 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Counsel:

Christopher G. Riggs, for the applicants;

Anthony D. Griffin, for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

This application was heard on April 15, 2008, by Ferrier, Molloy and Linhares de Sousa, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following endorsement was released by the court on April 30, 2008.