Mark v. Jagtoo and Jagtoo, 2009 HRTO 281

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Mark

Applicant

-and-

Jagtoo and Jagtoo, Professional Corporation and James Jagtoo

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 281

Indexed as: Mark v. Jagtoo and Jagtoo

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that the personal respondent and organizational respondent, a lawyer and law firm providing legal services on behalf of the applicant's ex-wife, subjected him to discrimination and reprisal in services on the basis of a variety of protected Code grounds. In particular, the applicant alleges that, during the course of matrimonial litigation, the respondents perpetuated false and discriminatory claims about his mental health status.

BACKGROUND

2The respondents requested that the Application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because the substance of this Application is the same as a previous complaint filed with, and dismissed by, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission"). The respondents provided a copy of an August 27, 2008 decision issued by the Commission declining to deal with the applicant's human rights complaint against the respondents because the human rights complaint "fails to establish a reasonable basis upon which it can be maintained" and "can be characterized as vexatious."

3In an earlier Interim Decision regarding this matter, 2009 HRTO 31, the Tribunal required the applicant to file, and deliver to the other parties, a copy of his human rights complaint; submissions regarding whether or not the substance of this Application is based on the same or substantially the same facts as the human rights complaint; and submissions regarding whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the merits of this Application.

DECISION REGARDING JURISDICTION

4Section 53(8) of the Code provides:

No application, other than an application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.

5Under section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to accept an application in circumstances where the allegations contained in the application constituted the subject-matter of a complaint previously filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code.

6In addition to filing with this Tribunal his previous human rights complaint, the applicant also filed voluminous submissions, numerous documents, exhibits and charts. After reviewing the applicant's extensive materials, the Tribunal determines that it does not require Response submissions from the respondents on the section 53(8) jurisdictional issue.

7The Tribunal finds that both the current Application and the previous human rights complaint refer to a period of time pertaining to the applicant's divorce proceedings and related legal matters. The human rights complaint was made against the same respondents (personal and organizational) as identified in the current Application. Like the current Application, the applicant's previous human rights complaint sets out his allegations of discriminatory treatment and reprisal by the respondents, including concerns that the respondents made "false" and "prejudicial statements" that damaged his reputation, "mocked" his disabilities, inappropriately used his disabilities to assert irrelevant claims and "created false disabilities to assert unreasonable claims". Numerous allegations cited in the previous human rights complaint are repeated in the current Application, including the applicant's concerns that he experienced a dehumanizing process, was excluded from a hearing, subjected to a false settlement proposal and threats to his liberty. Many of the documents relied upon by the applicant to substantiate his current Application were also appended to his previous human rights complaint.

8The Tribunal finds that this Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is satisfied that this Application is barred under section 53(8), as its subject-matter is substantially the same as the subject-matter of the human rights complaint that the applicant filed with the Commission.

9In addition, the respondents submitted that the substance of this Application was also the subject of a past complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada, wherein that complaint was closed on the basis of insufficient grounds. Given the jurisdictional disposition, it is no longer necessary to determine whether the Law Society of Upper Canada process "appropriately dealt with" the substance of this Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code.

10The Application is dismissed.