Hendershott v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 482 (CanLII)

This decision is really awful! I excerpted the important parts (below): http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2011/2011hrto482/2011hrto482.pdf

I check where it's cited: I find another really awful decision which leads me to a broad conclusion: from 2003 to 2013 our human rights Tribunals have placed their own decisions (and the merits of them) above the safety and well being of children. I pulled out the "reason":

"The government is entitled to justify the law, not by showing that it has accommodated the claimant, but by establishing that the measure is rationally connected to a pressing and substantial goal, minimally impairing of the right and proportionate in its effects."

Now I have to truck over to where the "reason" is cited.  

[8]               At an earlier stage in the proceeding, I declined the complainant’s Request to have the Tribunal adjudicate the same facts under section 15 of the Charter as well as under tort law and other provincial statutes which govern the safety and welfare of children. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is statutory and does not extend to adjudicating tort cases and cases under other provincial legislation. With respect to the Charter, the complainant is not challenging a provision of the Code itself under the Charter and therefore my jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating this matter in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

[9]               During the hearing I made one further ruling of note: the case analysis dated January 27, 2004, and the reconsideration analysis dated January 30, 2007, prepared by staff at the Commission and filed at the hearing by the respondent, were irrelevant to my decision-making. The documents were put to me for the purpose of bolstering the respondent’s position that the regulations in question do not breach the Code. Those documents represent the opinions of staff and Commissioners in the execution of a different mandate, which, before June 30, 2008, was to determine whether a matter warranted further inquiry by the Tribunal. The documents may technically be admissible; however, I have attached no weight to them in these circumstances since it is the role of the Tribunal, and not the Commission, to make the ultimate determination as to whether the Code has been breached.

[75]           As the Commission pointed out, while the government may not be obliged to provide benefits at all, once it does it must do so without discrimination. However, the OWA does not provide benefits to children under the age of 18 who are living with and dependent on their parents. Those children have a legal entitlement to child support under a different statutory regime.