Anica Visic v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 HRTO 2068

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Anica Visic Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: December 1, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2068 Indexed as: Visic v. Law Society of Upper Canada

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) which alleges discrimination on the basis of disability in membership in a vocational association. Specifically, the applicant alleges discrimination against the respondent in connection with her efforts to complete the articling phase of the Bar Admission Course.

2The respondent submits that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that the substance of the Application is identical to an outstanding Application before the Tribunal; a prior complaint to the Law Society that has been investigated, mediated and closed, and an ongoing "good character" proceeding before a Law Society Hearing Panel.

3The outstanding Application before the Tribunal was initiated by the applicant against different respondents it is therefore irrelevant.

4The prior complaint to the Law Society (specifically, the Law Society's Discrimination and Harassment Counsel) was as against a law firm with which the applicant had completed a portion of her articles. According to the respondent, the complaint was investigated and the parties engaged in mediation, after which the file was closed. According to the applicant, the respondent refused to engage in mediation. In any event, there is no suggestion that the respondent in this Application was released as a result of this process, and therefore this prior complaint does not support the early dismissal of this Application.

5The Law Society Act and the Law Society's Bylaws require that applicants for a license to practice law "must be of good character". Questions were raised by the respondent in this regard as a result of an answer given by the applicant on her Bar Admission Course Application.

6The respondent undertook an investigation which extended from January 2008 until May 2009. The respondent advises that as a result of the investigator’s concerns, the applicant’s matter was brought before the Proceedings Authorization Committee of the respondent, which serves a screening role and decides whether an investigation does or does not merit a hearing. In the applicant's case, it was determined that it was necessary to hold a hearing, and a notice to that effect has been issued by the respondent to the applicant.

7However, the applicant advises that a hearing date will not be set by the respondent until after the applicant has completed a further six months of articling. She submits that there is no guarantee that she will complete further articling, and therefore she takes the position that the respondent's position regarding the scheduling of the good character hearing is causing indefinite delay and prejudice to her.

8The applicant further submits that the Tribunal has a broad legislative mandate to adjudicate issues of human rights violation, and that the nature of the respondent’s good character proceeding is significantly different from this Application. She further argues that the remedies available in the two forums are different, and that the good character proceeding will not deal adequately with her human rights issues.

9The purpose of the good character proceeding is to determine whether or not the applicant is of sufficient "good character" to be admitted to the Bar of Ontario. Although it is possible that issues of discrimination will be raised in that forum, the existence of discrimination and remedies flowing from any discrimination that is found to have occurred are not the focus of that proceeding. By comparison, the applicant has filed this Application alleging discrimination contrary to the provisions of the Code in a number of respects, and has sought extensive remedies which she alleges she is entitled to as a result of having been discriminated against.

10The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

11In this case, although there is certainly some overlap between the facts at issue in the good character proceeding versus this Application, it appears to me that the issues in the two proceedings, as well as the remedies available to the applicant, are different. Furthermore, the status of the good character proceeding is such that it may never proceed, or at least, it is not expected to proceed in the foreseeable future. In such circumstances, the applicant is entitled to have her human rights issues dealt with by the Tribunal by way of this Application.

12The respondent’s request to have this Application dismissed at this stage is dismissed. As the parties have not agreed to mediation, the matter will be listed for hearing by the Registrar's office.

13I am not seized of this matter.