Elizabeth Carlos v. Scher Law Professional Corporation Barristers and Solicitors, 2010 HRTO 175

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Carlos

Applicant

-and-

Scher Law Professional Corporation Barristers and Solicitors, 1174364 Ontario Ltd., Hugh Scher and Manuel Ferreira

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: January 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 175

Indexed as: Carlos v. Scher Law Professional Corporation

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the“Code”).

2In essence, the applicant alleges that the respondents’ behaviour in the context of another proceeding before the Tribunal constituted a reprisal against her. She says their behaviour in that proceeding impeded her ability to claim and enforce her rights under the Code, to institute and participate in proceedings under the Code and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under the Code.

3The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) asking the Tribunal to refer the Application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and to defer the Tribunal’s handling of the Application pending the Commission’s inquiry.

4The applicant relies on subsections 44(15) and 45.4(1) of the Code. These provisions state:

44(15) The Commission may, at the request of the Tribunal, appoint a person to conduct an inquiry under this section and the person so appointed has all of the powers of a person appointed by the Tribunal under this section and shall report to the Tribunal in accordance with subsection (14).

45.4 (1) The Tribunal may refer any matters arising out of a proceeding before it to the Commission if, in the Tribunal’s opinion, they are matters of public interest or are otherwise of interest to the Commission.

5In setting out the reasons for her Request, the applicant argues that it is the Commission’s function and duty to forward the dignity and self-worth of individuals and to promote compliance with the Code. However, she does not explain what it is about the Application, in particular, that warrants referral to the Commission.

6In the circumstances, there is no particular basis for referring the Application to the Commission. The applicant’s Request is denied.

7I am not seized of this matter.