Lafond v. Hopital Montfort, 2009 HRTO 529

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Guy Lafond

Applicant

-and-

Hopital Montfort, Emanuel Augustin, Andre St. Pierre,

Reina Binette, Diane Lavallee

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: April 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 529

Indexed as: Lafond v. Hopital Montfort

1This is an Application filed on March 17, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) in which the applicant alleges discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, as well as reprisal. The Application was accompanied by a Request to Expedite. The applicant also subsequently filed a Request for Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry.

2The respondent the Montfort Hospital (the Hospital) and three individual respondents have responded to the Request to Expedite. In their response, among other things, they request that the Tribunal defer the proceedings pending completion of the Hospital’s internal investigation of the applicant’s complaint.

3The parties have advised the Tribunal they are prepared to engage in mediation. In light of the above, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation date as soon as possible after the date for filing a Response.

4The Tribunal will determine the Request to Expedite Proceedings following the mediation if it does not result in a settlement. The Tribunal will also deal with the applicant’s Request for Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry and the respondents’ request to defer following mediation, if necessary.

5The Tribunal finds it appropriate at this time, however, to address a request made by the applicant by email communication on April 15, 2009. In that communication, the applicant asks the Tribunal to direct that counsel for the Hospital cease representing certain individual respondents. The applicant maintains that the Hospital is in a conflict of interest in that it is in the position of both a “judge and party” to this proceeding. The applicant appears to base his position on the role of the Hospital in administering its corporate policies, which he says conflicts with its role in representing (through the same legal counsel) some of the very employees that it is investigating.

6The Tribunal finds no basis for making the order sought by the applicant. Even if it has the power to remove a legal representative on the basis of a conflict of interest, the circumstances described by the applicant do not support such an extraordinary measure.

7The Registrar is directed to schedule a mediation as soon as possible following May 11, the date set for filing the Response.

8All time requirements under the Tribunal’s Rules remain in effect.

9I am not seized of this matter.