Noronha v. 1174364 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 935

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Noronha

Applicant

-and-

1174364 Ontario Limited, Scher & DeAngelis Professional Corporation,

Hugh Scher, and Manuel Ferreira

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: June 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 935

Indexed as: Noronha v. 1174364 Ontario

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) alleging reprisal contrary to section 8.

2The applicant was the representative and spouse of an applicant in a separate, section 53(3) Application before the Tribunal. The applicant in this Application, alleges that he suffered reprisal under the Code because the respondents in the s. 53(3) Application made a Request for an Order before the Tribunal, to have him removed as representative.

3In an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 425, I directed the parties to make written submissions on two preliminary issues. First, whether the protection from reprisal in section 8 applies to a party’s representative, and more particularly, whether the right of a person to “participate in proceedings under this Act… without reprisal or threat of reprisal” covers the right to be a representative in a proceeding before the Tribunal. Second, whether a privilege attaches to a formal request to have a person removed as a representative.

4The parties filed their submissions as directed.

5After reviewing the submissions of the parties, I find that these two issues remain significant threshold issues that should be determined as preliminary matters. Section 43(2)1 of the Code provides that an application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not be finally disposed of without providing the parties the opportunity to make oral submissions. As a result, the Tribunal shall schedule a half day hearing to hear the parties’ oral submissions on these issues.

6The Tribunal stresses that it has made no determination of the above issues, or any other question related to this Application, but only that it is fair, just and expeditious to deal with these issues as preliminary matters at an oral hearing. Should the Tribunal find that section 8 covers the applicant as representative, and there is no privilege that attached to the respondent’s formal request to have him removed, it will schedule a further hearing to deal with the merits of the Application.

7I am not seized.