HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Andrew Cooper
Applicant
-and-
Pinkofskys and David Bayliss
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan Whyte
Date: October 7, 2008
Citation: 2008 HRTO 131
Indexed as: Cooper v. Pinkofskys
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
655 Bay Street, 14th Floor
Toronto ON M7A 2A3
Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 / Fax (416) 326-2199 / Toll Free1-866-355-6099
TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168
E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca
Website www.hrto.ca
[1] This is an Application dated July 21, 2008 which is made under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).
[2] The Application names the corporate respondent as Pinkofsky’s Law Firm. However, it is clear from the response and submissions filed the corporate respondent is properly identified as Pinkofskys. The style of cause has been amended accordingly.
[3] The allegations of discrimination arise out of a murder trial in which the applicant was a witness for the Crown. The individual respondent, David Bayliss, represented one of the accused and cross-examined the applicant. The applicant alleges some of Mr. Bayliss’ questions during the cross-examination and comments made in his final argument were discriminatory. Mr. Bayliss’ client was ultimately convicted.
[4] The applicant alleges the respondents’ conduct amounted to discrimination in the area of “goods, services and facilities” and specifically in the areas of “Government” and “Legal aid services”.
[5] In my view, the Application raises an issue as to whether the allegations, even if accepted as true, properly fall within the social area of “goods, services and facilities” as set out in section 1 of the Code. If they do not, then the Application will likely be found to be outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal requires submissions from the parties on this issue. If after reviewing the submissions the Tribunal considers it necessary to hear oral submissions from the parties the Registrar will contact the parties to set a mutually convenient date.
[6] In addition, the respondents have commenced an appeal of the conviction and seek deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the appeal process.
[7] The Tribunal requested written submissions from the applicant on the deferral request by September 24, 2008. The applicant’s submissions were filed September 15, 2008. However, the deferral issue only needs to be decided if the Application is found to be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as described above.
[8] The Tribunal therefore orders that:
a) The parties shall deliver to each other their written submissions on whether the allegations contained in the Application fall within the meaning of “goods, services and facilities” in section 1 of the Code and file them with the Tribunal by October 27, 2008.
[9] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of October, 2008.
“Signed By”
Alan Whyte
Vice-Chair