Miguel Avila v. Riverdale Co-operative Houses and Denise Toussaint, 2009 HRTO 1236

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Miguel Avila

Applicant

-and-

Riverdale Co-operative Houses and Denise Toussaint

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: August 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1236

Indexed as: Avila v. Riverdale Co-operative Houses

1This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant in an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”).

2The Application alleges discrimination in housing on the grounds of disability, family status and receipt of public assistance. The Application named Riverdale Co-operative Homes and Denise Toussaint as respondents. The narrative included the following statement:

I am also recommending this court to investigate the Cooperative Housing Federation of Toronto in 2006 they were told by Credit Counselling of Toronto that the Avila family were approved to receive funds to cover their rent up to 2 months. The reply from Tom Clement – Director… was a simply NO answer to the Avila family. I could have approached a second time the HERE TO STAY FUND but due to this experience I opted for not applying.

3On July 6, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking orders that: (i) Tom Clement be added as a respondent; and (ii) Manuel Castro be added as his legal representative.

4The applicant provided no reasons in support of adding Mr. Clement. Neither the Application nor the Request for Order makes any allegation that he violated the Code. Accordingly, there is no basis to add Mr. Clement as a respondent and the Request to do so is dismissed: Marchese v. Fortinos, 2009 HRTO 25. Moreover, I note that the only events referred to involving Mr. Clement are well outside the time limit in s. 34 of the Code.

5Generally, a party does not need to make a Request for Order to have a licensed representative added to the file. Mr. Castro, however, appears not to be licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The Tribunal’s Policy on Representation Before the HRTO, available on its website, reads as follows:

A party or witness before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) may be self-represented or represented by a lawyer or paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).

A party or witness may be represented by an unlicensed person if that person falls within a category the LSUC has exempted from its licensing requirements. The current exemptions permit an unpaid friend or family member, an employee or volunteer from a trade union, and students, volunteers and employees of Legal Aid clinics, among others, to act as a representative. The LSUC’s website contains a complete list of the approved exemptions.

A person who is not licensed, whose license is suspended or who is not in a exempted category will not be permitted to act as a representative in an HRTO proceeding.

A licensed representative must provide her/his LSUC license number to the HRTO. The HRTO may ask an unlicensed representative to identify the LSUC category to which he or she belongs.

6Mr. Castro is directed to confirm, in writing to the Tribunal with copies to the respondents, whether he is a licensed member of the LSUC and, if not, within which category of unlicensed persons permitted to appear as a representative in legal proceedings he belongs. He shall do so within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision.

7I am not seized of this matter.