minicounsel

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Abbs and the Complainants listed on Schedule “A”

Complainants

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: June 17, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1377

Indexed as: Abbs v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

[2] In a Case Assessment Direction dated June 4, 2010, the Tribunal stated:

Sarah Shartal-Levinthal is on the record as counsel for the Complainants in these matters. By Decision dated April 27, 2010, the Commission and clinic counsel were ordered to deliver a master list of disabilities/conditions for which it is alleged that the failure to provide a special diet violates the Code.

Counsel for the Commission advised the Tribunal at the hearing on May 28, 2010, that she has not received a response to requests for information from Ms. Shartal-Levinthal. Counsel for the respondent advised the Tribunal that Ms. Shartal-Levinthal has stated that she would not be participating further in the special diet litigation.

Rule 8 of the Rules of Practice for Commission referred complaints reads as follows:

Where a representative intends to cease acting for a person or party in a proceeding, the representative shall promptly notify the Tribunal and the other parties in writing.

Rule 109 reads:

If the address, phone number, fax number or email address of a party or his/her representative changes, the party shall immediately notify the Tribunal and all other parties of the change in writing. Where any party fails to provide the Tribunal with their current and accurate contact information, the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of that party.

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal orders as follows:

Within ten days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, Ms. Shartal-Levinthal shall write to the Tribunal, with copies to the other parties, advising of the status of these matters and whether she continues to represent the complainants.
If Ms. Shartal-Levinthal still represents the complainants listed in Schedule “A”, she shall provide Commission counsel with the information required to compile the list of conditions directed at para. 2(4) of the Tribunal’s decision of April 22, 2010 and her letter shall confirm to the Tribunal in writing that she has done so.
If Ms. Shartal-Levinthal no longer represents any or all of the complainants listed in Schedule “A”, her letter shall provide current contact information for each complainant she no longer represents.
If any or all of the complainants listed in Schedule “A” no longer wish to pursue their complaints, a letter requesting leave to withdraw the complaints should be sent to the Tribunal.
If the Tribunal does not receive any correspondence with regard to this matter within ten days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the complaints may be dismissed as abandoned.

[3] The Tribunal has not received correspondence from Ms. Shartal as directed. This failure, by a licensed lawyer, to comply with and respect the Tribunal’s process and directions is a matter of significant concern. As the Tribunal noted in Edward v. Moda at Home, 2009 HRTO 1010, at paras. 3-4:

As noted in Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, filing an Application with the Tribunal requires a respondent to take significant steps, and engages substantial public resources. Parties are required to respond to Tribunal directions and comply with the Tribunal’s Rules, in order to ensure fairness to both parties and the efficient use of resources to deal with the many applications the Tribunal receives.

Representatives, too, have obligations to both their clients and to the Tribunal. A significant part of that responsibility is complying with the HRTO’s Rules and responding to Tribunal communications.

[4] Counsel for the Commission wrote to the Tribunal on June 4, 2010 as follows:

This is in response to the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction of June 4, 2010.

While it is regrettable that Ms. Shartal has not communicated with the Tribunal regarding her representation of the complainants listed in Schedule “A”, her clients or former clients, as parties to the proceedings, are entitled to continue with their complaints, whether or not they are represented by counsel and whether or not Ms. Shartal complies with the Tribunal’s directions.

As a separate party to the complaints, the Commission does not represent complainants, but would endeavour to contact the complainants in question and communicate with them regarding the proceedings once the question of Ms. Shartal’s representation is clarified.

[5] In all the circumstances, and in view of the Commission’s willingness to contact the complainants for whom the Tribunal does not have up-to-date contact information, the Tribunal makes the following Orders:

1) Sarah Shartal is removed as the representative of the complainants listed on Schedule “A”.

2) Within 60 days of the date of this Interim Decision, counsel for the Commission shall advise the Tribunal of current contact information for each of the complainants listed on Schedule “A”.

3) The complaints of any complainants for whom the Commission is unable to obtain current contact information shall be dismissed as abandoned following the 60 day period.

Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of June, 2010.

“Signed by”

David A. Wright

Interim Chair

Schedule “A”

Abbs, David –1656-08
Addison, Sylvan – 1657-08
Briggs, Bonitta – 1658-8-08
Brown, Marie – 1659-08
Burt, Pansy Yvonne – 1660-08
Cason, Wesley – 1661-08
Essery, Kathy – 1663-08
Faustina, Murray -- 1664-08
Fenwick, Victoria –1665-08
Francis, Michael – 1666-08
Froude, Eric – 1667-08
Fujs, David – 1668-08
Graham, Michael – 1669-08
Hoffman, Jennifer – 1670-08
Hoffman, Samantha – 1671-08
Hylton, Noel – 1672-08
Jackson, John – 1673-08
Kersteins, Katherine – 1674-08
Klemm, Bonnie – 1675-08
Landry, James – 1676-08
Lesser, Laura – 1677-08
Monteath, Stephen – 1678-08
Nava, Emanuel – 1679-08
Priolo, Carmin – 1680-08
Rose, Eva – 1681-08
Salm, Donna – 1682-08
Santdonato, Filippo – 1683-08
Small, Brenda – 1684-08
Smart, Ann – 1685-08
Stewart, Chuck – 1686-08
Stewart, John – 1687-08
Townsend, Peter – 1688-08
Vanegas, Pedro – 1689-08
Walker, Ed – 1690-08
Wareham, Janice – 1691-08
Williams, Terrance – 1692-08

Abbs v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 1377

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[2] In a Case Assessment Direction dated June 4, 2010, the Tribunal stated:

[3] The Tribunal has not received correspondence from Ms. Shartal as directed. This failure, by a licensed lawyer, to comply with and respect the Tribunal’s process and directions is a matter of significant concern. As the Tribunal noted in Edward v. Moda at Home, 2009 HRTO 1010, at paras. 3-4:

[4] Counsel for the Commission wrote to the Tribunal on June 4, 2010 as follows:

[5] In all the circumstances, and in view of the Commission’s willingness to contact the complainants for whom the Tribunal does not have up-to-date contact information, the Tribunal makes the following Orders:

1) Sarah Shartal is removed as the representative of the complainants listed on Schedule “A”.

2) Within 60 days of the date of this Interim Decision, counsel for the Commission shall advise the Tribunal of current contact information for each of the complainants listed on Schedule “A”.

3) The complaints of any complainants for whom the Commission is unable to obtain current contact information shall be dismissed as abandoned following the 60 day period.

Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of June, 2010.

Abbs v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 1377

Case Summary

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

[2] In a Case Assessment Direction dated June 4, 2010, the Tribunal stated:

[3] The Tribunal has not received correspondence from Ms. Shartal as directed. This failure, by a licensed lawyer, to comply with and respect the Tribunal’s process and directions is a matter of significant concern. As the Tribunal noted in Edward v. Moda at Home, 2009 HRTO 1010, at paras. 3-4:

[4] Counsel for the Commission wrote to the Tribunal on June 4, 2010 as follows:

[5] In all the circumstances, and in view of the Commission’s willingness to contact the complainants for whom the Tribunal does not have up-to-date contact information, the Tribunal makes the following Orders:

1) Sarah Shartal is removed as the representative of the complainants listed on Schedule “A”.

2) Within 60 days of the date of this Interim Decision, counsel for the Commission shall advise the Tribunal of current contact information for each of the complainants listed on Schedule “A”.

3) The complaints of any complainants for whom the Commission is unable to obtain current contact information shall be dismissed as abandoned following the 60 day period.

Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of June, 2010.