HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Frank Cosgrove
Applicant
-and-
Susan Reasbeck and Brian Reasbeck
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Cosgrove v. Reasbeck
1This Interim Decision deals with a number of preliminary issues raised by the respondents in an Application filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
2The Application was filed on October 6, 2009 by Thomas Bellazi on behalf of Frank Cosgrove. It was filed using the Tribunal’s Form 4 – Application under section 34(1) or 34(5) of the Human Rights Code on Behalf of Another Person. It is not clear if the Application was filed under section 34(1) or section 34(5).
3Section 34(1) of the Code, pertains to applications filed by a Litigation Guardian or Substitute Decision maker. Section 34(5) provides that a person may file an application on behalf of another person as long as the other person consents and would otherwise have been entitled to bring an application.
4The respondents point out that it does not appear that Mr. Bellazi is a Litigation Guardian or Substitute Decision maker for Mr. Cosgrove and had not provided proof of that status.
5Mr. Bellazi has now clarified that he filed the Application on behalf of Mr. Cosgrove. Mr. Cosgrove consented to the filing of the Application by Mr. Bellazi on his behalf.
6While the Application form may not have been accurately completed, I am satisfied that the intention was to file the Application under section 34(5) and that it may be processed on that basis.
STATUS OF THE APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE
7The Application names Ivor McIlory as the applicant’s representative. The respondents note that the Tribunal’s Rule 1.14 requires that representatives must be authorized to provide legal services in accordance with the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 and its regulations and by-laws. The respondents question whether Mr. McIlory is an authorized representative.
8Mr. McIlroy advises that he is a long term family friend and confirms that he will not be charging a fee for his services. He refers to subsection 5 of section 30(1) of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s By-Law 4 exempting from licensing requirements:
An individual,
i. whose profession or occupation is not and does not include the provision of legal services or the practice of law,
ii. who provides the legal services only occasionally,
iii. who provides the legal services only for and on behalf of a related person, within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada), a friend or a neighbour, and
iv. who does not expect and does not receive any compensation, including a fee, gain or reward, direct or indirect, for the provision of the legal services.
9Based on the available information, Mr. McIlroy falls under the above noted exemption and may represent the applicant before the Tribunal.
OTHER CONCERNS
10The respondents submit that the Application should be dismissed on various grounds, all of which appear to relate to the respondents’ views of the merits of the Application. The Tribunal will decide when and how to consider these submissions if the matter proceeds to a hearing.
11Both parties have agreed to try mediation. The Tribunal will schedule a mediation session.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of March, 2010.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair