Carlos v. Scher Law, 2010 HRTO 2019

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Carlos Applicant

-and-

Scher Law Professional Corporation, Hugh Scher and Manuel Ferreira Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Daniel Noronha Applicant

-and-

Scher and DeAngelis Professional Corporation, Hugh Scher and Manuel Ferreira Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Lorne Slotnick Date: October 4, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2019 Indexed as: Carlos v. Scher Law

APPEARANCES BY

Elizabeth Carlos and Daniel Noronha, Applicants: No one appearing

Scher Law Professional Corporation, Scher and DeAngelis Professional Corporation and Hugh Scher, Respondents: Hugh Scher, Counsel

Manuel Ferreira, Respondent: Hugh Scher, Counsel

1By Interim Decision, dated April 29, 2010, 2010 HRTO 941, the Tribunal ordered these two Applications to be heard together and ordered a preliminary hearing on several issues, including whether the Applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process and whether an order should be made declaring either or both of the applicants vexatious litigants.

2The parties were requested to make submissions on the issues set out in the Interim Decision of April 29, 2010. Respondents filed their submissions, but nothing was filed by either applicant. I am satisfied that all parties were given notice of the hearing scheduled for September 30, 2010. On the date of the hearing, the respondents attended, but neither applicant had appeared within 45 minutes of the hearing start time, and neither applicant had called the Tribunal.

3The respondents requested that I dismiss the applications and require that leave be requested and granted by the Tribunal before either of these applicants can file an application against the respondents or a related party.

BACKGROUND

4The applicant Carlos’s Application alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, she alleges that while she was preparing for the hearing of an earlier Application she had filed with the Tribunal, the respondent Hugh Scher acted in a manner which constituted a reprisal or a threat of a reprisal. Ms. Carlos claims Mr. Scher’s behaviour impeded her ability to claim and enforce her rights under the Code and to institute and participate in proceedings under the Code.

5The applicant Daniel Noronha’s Application also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Code arising out of his having acted as the representative for Ms. Carlos during her earlier Application.

6Events prior to the filing of these two applications are relevant. Ms. Carlos had filed an earlier Application, Tribunal File Number T-0067-08, alleging sexual harassment and solicitation in housing and naming 1174364 Ontario Ltd. and Manuel Ferreira as respondents (the “transition Application”). The respondent Hugh Scher was counsel to the respondents in the transition Application. The respondents Scher Law Professional Corporation and Scher and DeAngelis Professional Corporation are law firms in which Mr. Scher is or has been associated.

7During the hearing of the transition Application the respondents requested that Mr. Noronha be disqualified as a representative in that proceeding. This Request was denied. The Tribunal dismissed the Transitional Application. See 2009 HRTO 311.

8Mr. Noronha then filed an Application, Tribunal File Number 2009-01453-I, (the “first Noronha Application”) against the respondent numbered corporation, Mr. Ferreira, Mr. Scher and the Scher law firm alleging reprisal and threats of reprisal arising out of the Request to have him disqualified as a representative. In an Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 935, the Tribunal set the first Noronha Application down for an oral hearing to determine a preliminary issue. Mr. Noronha responded with a motion requesting that the Chair of the Tribunal recuse himself from the matter on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. This request was rejected in an Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 1292. Before the hearing on the preliminary issues could proceed Mr. Noronha requested, and was granted, leave to withdraw the first Noronha Application. See Noronha v. 1174364 Ontario Limited, 2009 HRTO 2054.

DECISION

9These Applications are dismissed in view of the failure of either applicant to attend the hearing or file submissions.

10A review of the file leads me to conclude that these applicants have shown disrespect for the Tribunal and its processes, and that they appear to be using human rights applications (as well as complaints to other bodies) to harass the respondents and cause them to incur costs. One example will suffice: Mr. Noronha requested and was granted leave to withdraw the first Noronha application after an adverse decision on his request to have the Chair recuse himself. This came after his request that the Chair hear the matter. He then filed the application now before me, based on the same facts as the first Noronha application that he asked to withdraw.

11The Tribunal has the power, pursuant to s. 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended (“SPPA”), to make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuses of its process. The Tribunal has applied this power to dismiss Applications where parties have engaged in vexatious conduct using the Tribunal’s process. It has also used this power to declare an individual a vexatious litigant. See Drenic v Governing Council of the Salvation Army, 2010 HRTO 1667.

12As noted in the Drenic case, this is an exceptional step. However, I have concluded it is warranted here to ensure that the Tribunal’s resources are not wasted and that these respondents are protected from vexatious conduct. It is worth noting that there appears to be no ongoing relationship between either of the applicants and any of the respondents.

13I therefore order that should either of the applicants wish to commence an Application against Hugh Scher, Scher and DeAngelis LLP, Scher and DeAngelis Professional Corporation, Scher Law Professional Corporation, 1174364 Ontario Limited or any associated corporation, or Manuel Ferreira or any member of his immediate family including his wife or sons, leave from the Tribunal must be requested.

14If either applicant seeks leave to file future applications against any respondent noted above, they must include with the complete application submissions that outline why the application is intended as a legitimate assertion of his Code rights, is not intended to vex the respondents, and will not result in an abuse of process.