Martha Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc. et al., 2008 HRTO 5

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Martha Glover Complainant

• and -

Ontario Human Rights Commission Commission

• and-

571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, 1528433 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Cadillac Tavern, Vladimir (a.k.a. Walter) Perin Sr., Walter Perin Jr. Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil Date: January 17, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 5 Indexed as: Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc. et al.

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 400 University Avenue, 7th Floor Toronto ON M7A 1T7 Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@jus.gov.on.ca Website www.hrto.ca

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Martha Glover ) Geri Sanson ) Counsel

Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Prahbu Rajan ) Counsel

1This decision addresses a request made by the complainant Martha Glover, that I recuse myself from hearing these complaints because of real or perceived bias. The basis for the bias claim is essentially threefold. First, that I have prejudged certain preliminary requests made by Ms. Glover. Second, that I have engaged in ex parte communications with Commission counsel in relation to this case. Third, that I have “a level of self-interest in maintaining a positive and friendly relationship” with the Commission, Hart Schwartz and the Chief Commissioner in order to successfully achieve the Tribunal’s mandate under the Human Rights Code Amendment Act 2006, such that I am unable to fairly determine the issues in this case.

2The request that I recuse myself was first raised by counsel for Ms. Glover in an email dated December 21, 2007. That email followed two interim decisions dated December 11, 2007 and December 20, 2007 (previously unreported, now reported at 2008 HRTO 3 and 2008 HRTO 4), in which I provided procedural direction for the hearing of certain preliminary requests made by Ms. Glover, and for the hearing of the substance of the complaints. The circumstances which led me to make the procedural directions, and a summary of the protracted history of these proceedings are set out in those two decisions.

3By correspondence dated December 21, 2007 the Tribunal confirmed that there had not been any ex parte communication with the Commission or its counsel in relation to this case.

4The litigation and adjudication of Ms. Glover’s most recent request will undoubtedly prolong the determination of the subject matter of these two complaints: whether the respondents breached the settlement entered into between the parties on March 1, 2006. For purely practical reasons, and in an effort to reduce the number of collateral issues in these proceedings, the Tribunal will reassign these complaints to a different adjudicator. The dates for the conference call hearing and the oral hearing set out in the December 20, 2007 decision are vacated.