Mark v. Jagtoo & Jagtoo Professional Corporation, 2009 HRTO 31

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Mark

Applicant

-and-

Jagtoo & Jagtoo Professional Corporation and James Jagtoo

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: January 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 31

Indexed as: Mark v. Jagtoo & Jagtoo Professional Corporation

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 both the personal respondent and organizational respondent, a lawyer and law firm providing legal services on behalf of his ex-wife, subjected him to discrimination and reprisal in services on the basis of disability, sex, sexual solicitation, family status, marital status, age and receipt of public assistance.

2The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Applications under Part IV of the Code (the “Rules”).

Request to Expedite

3The applicant requests that his Application be expedited because the false claims allegedly made by the respondents have endangered his well-being, his familial relationships, his ability to travel internationally and exposed him to various security checks.

4The respondent did not respond to the Request to Expedite.

5Rule 21.1 provides that the Tribunal may deal with an Application on an expedited basis in circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute”. In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, the Tribunal held as follows, at paragraph 9:

For a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.

6The Request to Expedite is denied. The applicant did not identify any specific circumstances that are so particularly urgent as to distinguish his Application from other cases before the Tribunal.

Request to Dismiss

7The respondents have 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 have 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.” In addition, the respondents submit 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.

8Section 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.

9Section 45.1 of the Code provides:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

10As a result, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to receive submissions with respect to whether, in the circumstances, this Application is barred by virtue of either section 53(8) or section 45.1 of the Code. The Tribunal makes the following Order:

(i) Within 21 days following the date of this decision, the applicant shall file with the Tribunal, 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 whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the merits of this Application;

(ii) After reviewing the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal shall determine whether it requires response submissions from the respondents on the section 53(8) jurisdictional issues, and if so, will set a timetable for the filing of response submissions, and for the applicant’s reply; and

(iii) If the Tribunal determines it has jurisdiction to proceed with this Application, the Tribunal shall set a timetable to hear submissions from the parties regarding the applicability of section 45.1 and on whether or not the Law Society proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

11I am not seized of this matter.