Williams v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 HRTO 326

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jody Williams

Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada, Jessica Kowalski, Sharon Seenath and Bruce Dunsmuir

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: March 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 326

Indexed as: Williams v. Law Society of Upper Canada

1This is an Application filed October 14, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Case Resolution Conference is scheduled for May 19 and 26, 2009. The deadline for disclosure has passed. This Interim Decision deals with a request for production.

2The complaint underlying the present Application was filed with the Commission on July 26, 2007. The applicant self-identifies as a single mother who is poor. She alleges that the respondents discriminated against her in the provision of a service because of her family status and because she was in receipt of public assistance. The applicant filed a complaint against a lawyer with the Law Society and subsequently also filed a claim for compensation with the Law Society Compensation Fund. The respondents state that to be eligible to receive a grant from the Fund, the client must prove that he/she gave money to a lawyer and the lawyer dishonestly took or failed to account for it. The applicant's claim was for the damages she suffered as a result of the advice given by her lawyer, which was not covered by the Fund.

3The applicant alleges that the manner in which the Law Society Compensation Fund is applied had a discriminatory impact on her. She also alleges that the named personal respondents treated her differently because she was a poor single mother.

4The applicant requested production of the entire contents of the Law Society Complaints Process file relating to the complaint filed by the applicant against her lawyer. The respondents stated that they have produced the entire file with the following exceptions:

a. Documents that contain private and confidential information regarding the lawyer who is the subject matter of the complaint (e.g., his personal information, other complaints and/or ongoing investigations against him, and information about his professional business that he is required to produce to the Law Society);

b. Records of communications between the lawyer and the Law Society (e.g., telephone records and correspondence); and

c. Internal Law Society communications (e.g., request for authorization to investigate the complaint, authorization to do so, and transfer of the complaint to and from Intake to Complaints Resolution).

5I agree with the respondents that items a) and b) are not relevant to the issues of alleged discrimination. The Tribunal will not be determining the merits of the Law Society's determination of the claim to the Compensation Fund (whether they properly or improperly denied her claim). The issue before the Tribunal is whether the refusal of the claim was discriminatory or whether the manner in which the staff at the Law Society treated the applicant was discriminatory.

6However, internal communications may be arguably relevant if they contain any notations of conversations with or about the applicant. It is not clear from the respondents' submissions whether they are refusing to produce such internal communications.

7In the circumstances, the respondent is ordered to provide the internal Law Society communications that contain any reference to or about the applicant.