Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Jeremy Woodcock Applicant
-and-
Gerdau Ameristeel Inc. Respondent
-and-
United Steelworkers Local 6571 Intervenor
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: May 26, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1009 Indexed as: Woodcock v. Gerdau Ameristeel Inc.
Appearances
Jeremy Woodcock, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf Gerdau Ameristeel Inc., Respondent ) Mark Contini, Counsel United Steelworkers Local 6571, Intervenor ) Mark Rowlinson, Counsel
Reasons for Decision
1A hearing was held in this matter on May 19, 2011. Mr. George C. Parker sought to represent the applicant. The respondent took the position that Mr. Parker was not entitled to represent the applicant pursuant to the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1999, c. L.8, as amended, and its by-laws.
2Pursuant to s. 26.1 of the Law Society Act, no person other than a licensee of the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) may practice law or provide legal services in Ontario, subject to exceptions in the LSUC by-laws. The provision of legal services is defined as follows in s. 1:
(5) For the purposes of this Act, a person provides legal services if the person engages in conduct that involves the application of legal principles and legal judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person.
(6) Without limiting the generality of subsection (5), a person provides legal services if the person does any of the following:
Gives a person advice with respect to the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of the person or of another person.
Selects, drafts, completes or revises, on behalf of a person,
i. a document that affects a person’s interests in or rights to or in real or personal property,
ii. a testamentary document, trust document, power of attorney or other document that relates to the estate of a person or the guardianship of a person,
iii. a document that relates to the structure of a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership or other entity, such as a document that relates to the formation, organization, reorganization, registration, dissolution or winding-up of the entity,
iv. a document that relates to a matter under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada),
v. a document that relates to the custody of or access to children,
vi. a document that affects the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person, other than the legal interests, rights or responsibilities referred to in subparagraphs i to v, or
vii. a document for use in a proceeding before an adjudicative body.
Represents a person in a proceeding before an adjudicative body.
Negotiates the legal interests, rights or responsibilities of a person.
3When Mr. Parker wrote to the Tribunal on behalf of the applicant, the Tribunal asked for Mr. Parker’s LSUC number. He responded in writing as follows:
I am forwarding to you with this letter a signed copy of an "Agreement of Representation" and a signed copy of a "Contract of Agreement and Confidentiality" with Mr. Woodcock. With respect to the request for a LSUC Number, I must advise you that I do not hold a Law Degree, however, I do hold a Masters Degree from Queen's University. I was employed with the Ontario Ministry of Labour for thirty (30) years, as a senior Employment Standards Officer, retiring in 1993. Since 1995 I have been working as an Employment Law Consultant. I have represented clients in a variety of Labour and Employment issues at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
4The Tribunal then issued a Case Assessment Direction directing Mr. Parker to the Tribunal’s Policy on Representation Before the HRTO and to the Law Society Act and its by-laws. He responded as follows:
I, Mr. George Parker as an unlicensed person, am representing Mr. Jeremy Woodcock under the following exemption as stated:
By-Law - #4
Part V
PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES WITHOUT A LICENCE
Exemption - Acting for family, friend or neighbour
- 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 legal services only occasionally,
iii. who provides the legal services only for and behalf of a related person, with 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.
I trust that I meet the requirements under the above exemption and we shall proceed to the Hearing dated May 19, 2011.
5At the hearing, counsel for the respondent pointed out that the relevant section of the by-law had been amended since the version relied upon by Mr. Parker and now defines the exemption as follows:
- 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 for and on behalf of a friend or a neighbour,
iii. who provides the legal services in respect of not more than three matters per year, 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.
6The respondent took the position that Mr. Parker did not meet any of these conditions. Mr. Parker stated that he was acting for Mr. Woodcock pro bono, having waived his normal fees. He acknowledged that he provides legal services in respect of more than three matters per year. On the basis of this acknowledgement, he was excluded from acting before the Tribunal in accordance with the Law Society Act and by-laws.
7The parties agreed to adjourn the matter on consent. The following orders were also made