Judah v. Bresver Grossman Scheininger & Chapman, 2009 HRTO 1946

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Coralie Judah a.k.a. Perkins-Aboagye Applicant

• and-

Bresver Grossman Scheininger & Chapman LLP, Andrea Habas and Mark Handelman Respondents

Interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: November 17, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1946 Indexed as: Judah v. Bresver Grossman Scheininger & Chapman

1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“Tribunal”), Mark Handelman, a Member of the Tribunal, Bresver Grossman Scheininger & Chapman, LLP, (“Bresver Grossman”) the law firm representing respondents in other Applications brought by the applicant or by her son, and Andrea Habas, a lawyer with Bresver Grossman. The Application alleges the respondents discriminated against the applicant on various grounds in relation to contracts.

2On September 9, 2009, the applicant delivered and filed a Request to Withdraw this Application against the respondent Tribunal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

3On October 8, 2009 the Tribunal delivered the Application to the respondents. The parties were asked for their submissions on whether the Tribunal could hear the Application given it named the Tribunal and a Member of the Tribunal as respondents. At the same time the Tribunal advised the Request to Withdraw the Application as against the Tribunal would be accepted unless any party objected.

4None of the responding parties objected to the Request to Withdraw. The Application against the Tribunal is withdrawn with leave and the style of cause is accordingly amended.

REQUEST TO RECUSE

5On October 20, 2009 the respondents Bresver Grossman and Habas delivered and filed a Request for Order seeking that the Tribunal recuse itself from hearing this Application as against the remaining respondents. The respondent Handelman has not filed any materials.

6On October 25, 2009 the applicant filed a Request to Withdraw against the respondents Bresver Grossman, Habas and Handelman, although she did not file statements of delivery on those respondents. On October 28, 2009 the applicant filed a Response to the respondents’ Request for Order, delivered to all respondents, attaching the Request to Withdraw against these respondents.

7On November 1, 2009 the applicant delivered and filed another Response to the respondents’ Request for Order which she states “supersedes all previous Applications, Requests for Order During Proceedings and Responses and any and all correspondence in between.” It appears from this correspondence, therefore, that the applicant no longer wishes to withdraw this Application against the remaining respondents.

8In this Response she supports the Request by the respondents Bresver Grossman and Habas that the Tribunal recuse itself from hearing this Application and further asks the Tribunal to recuse itself from hearing other Applications filed by her (2009-01862-I) and her son (T-0903-I). The applicant’s breach of settlement Application 2009-03685-S is not included in this list.

9In the circumstances the Tribunal will hold a hearing to receive the parties’ submissions on the request to recuse the Tribunal from hearing this Application.

WHETHER THE APPLICATION RAISES ISSUES UNDER THE CODE

10The material in the Application also raises an issue about whether the allegations made by the applicant are within the Tribunal’s power to decide. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all claims of unfair treatment or allegations of wrongdoing. Its jurisdiction is based on the provisions of the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social areas, such as contractual relationships, on the basis of enumerated grounds. The Code does not regulate relationships between individuals which do not have a basis in one of these social areas. The applicant alleges discrimination in contractual relations. At the hearing, the Tribunal will receive the parties’ submissions on whether the allegations arise out of “contractual relations” or are otherwise covered by the Code.

11The parties may wish to consult the Tribunal’s decisions in this area, including Humphries v. General Electric of Canada 2009 HRTO 1869.

12The Tribunal therefore directs as follows:

a. A half-day hearing will be scheduled to hear the submissions of the parties on the issues identified above;

b. If any party wishes to rely on any supporting material for the purpose of the hearing (including submissions, facts or case law not already provided in the materials before the Tribunal), they are directed to deliver this material to each other, and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing;

c. This Interim Decision will be provided to the respondents in Tribunal File Nos. 2009-01862-I, T-0903-08 and 2009-03685-S, for their information.

13I am not seized of this matter.