Uzma Akhtar v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 HRTO 1479

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Uzma Akhtar

Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada, Daphne Simon, Diana Miles and Roman Woloszczuk

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: September 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1479

Indexed as: Akhtar v. Law Society of Upper Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Uzma Akhtar, Applicant ) On Her Own Behalf

Law Society of Upper Canada, ) Daphne Simon, Diana Miles, and ) Paul Jonathan Saguil, Counsel Roman Woloszczuk, Respondents )

1The applicant, Uzma Akhtar, alleges in her Application that she was discriminated against on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The allegation is that the organizational respondent, the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”), failed to appropriately accommodate her in her efforts to obtain a license from LSUC to practice law in Ontario as a barrister and solicitor. The Application also names three LSUC staff involved in overseeing or administering various aspects of LSUC’s licensing process as personal respondents.

2The applicant filed her Application with the Tribunal on July 30, 2009. On August 4, 2009, the Tribunal wrote to the parties inviting them to make submissions on the Request to Expedite the applicant filed with her Application and on whether the Tribunal should defer the processing of the Application in light of the fact that the applicant has an Application for Judicial Review before the Divisional Court relating to the subject matter of her Application.

3On August 18, 2009, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1274, dismissing the applicant’s request to have her Application expedited. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of deferral.

4Having considered the parties’ submissions, I have decided that this Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the Application for Judicial Review which is scheduled to be heard by the Divisional Court on September 21, 2009.

5On my review of the material before me, I am satisfied that the judicial review process will address the same facts and issues as the Application before the Tribunal. The judicial review application seeks review of a decision made by the LSUC’s Professional Development and Competence Committee in regards to a formal complaint made by the applicant. The complaint alleged that the LSUC did not provide her with adequate accommodations in her attempts to obtain her license to practice law. This is the same issue that the applicant has raised in her Application to the Tribunal.

6By deferring the Application, the Tribunal will ensure that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The fact that the Application for Judicial Review is scheduled to be heard imminently only reinforces the reasonableness of deferring the processing of the Application

7The Tribunal draws the applicant’s attention to the requirements set out in Rule 14. Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

8I am not seized of this matter.