Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jeffery Forde Applicant
-and-
Glen Carey Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: September 22, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1923 Indexed as: Forde v. Carey
1This is an Application filed on July 5, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in receipt of services on the basis of disability. The Application has not yet been served on the respondent by the Tribunal.
2On August 20, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to the applicant indicating that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons:
(a) the Application was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination and there is no indication that the delay was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice would result to any person affected by the delay;
(b) the respondent appears to be the lawyer for another party in another legal proceeding; and
(c) it is unclear how the allegations made in the Application relate to discrimination in the area of services on the grounds of disability within the meaning of the Code.
3The applicant was directed to provide submissions on the issues identified within 30 day of August 20, 2010. He has done so.
4The applicant has also filed a Form 10, Request for Order During Proceedings, seeking deferral of the Application until a complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada has been dealt with and an order directing the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to provide him with representation.
5Given my ruling on the issues arising out of the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, it is not necessary for me to address the issues raised in the Form 10.
6For the reasons that follow, this Application is dismissed.
7The applicant alleges that he was represented by the respondent in a criminal proceeding in 2002, that his mother was represented by the respondent’s partner in a property dispute and that the respondent subsequently acted for the applicant’s former spouse in a matrimonial matter in which the applicant was the opposing party. The applicant was represented by other counsel during the family law litigation.
8Although the service relationship between the applicant and respondent appears to have ended some time ago, in or around 2002 upon the conclusion of the criminal matter, the applicant lists the last in a series of incidents of discrimination as having occurred on June 16, 2009 and in later documents suggests the date may have been in January 2009. The Application was filed on July 5, 2010, more than one year after either date.
9The last alleged incident of discrimination appears to be the date on which a lien was removed on property pursuant to terms of a settlement between the applicant and his former spouse. The applicant suggests that the respondent delayed in removing the lien and that delay constitutes discrimination because the respondent was aware of the applicant’s disabilities and that the delay would be difficult for him.
10Although asked to clarify how the allegations amount to discrimination within the meaning of the Code, the applicant has failed to explain why a step taken in 2009 in the settlement or litigation process involving his matrimonial matter in which he was not in a service relationship with the respondent constitutes discrimination in receipt of services on the basis of disability. Based on the applicant’s materials, I am unable to find that his allegations about the respondent’s actions as counsel for his former spouse raise an issue of discrimination covered by the Code.
11Any service relationship that existed between the parties ended in or around 2002. The Application does not include any allegations that deal with that service relationship. Further, even with respect to events following 2002, there is no explanation for the delay in filing the human rights Application other than a statement that the applicant’s illness prevented him from raising his concerns sooner.
12On that point, I note that the applicant’s materials indicate that he was represented by counsel on other matters, appears to have engaged in other litigation and that he has filed a complaint against the respondent alleging professional misconduct during the intervening period. This is the same period of time during which he indicates his illness prevented him from filing the human rights Application within the time allowed under the Code. In these circumstances, I am not convinced that any illness experienced by the applicant, for which he provides no supporting detail or documentation, provides a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing his Application.
13For the reasons outlined, this Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 22nd day of September, 2010.
”signed by”______________
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair