Forde v. Human Rights Legal Support Centre, 2011 HRTO 1594

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

J.S. Forde

Applicant

• and-

Human Rights Legal Support Centre and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario

Respondents

decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: August 25, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1594

Indexed as: Forde v. Human Rights Legal Support Centre

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application relates to the applicant’s complaints about the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC) and alleges that the applicant was denied services by the Centre on the grounds of citizenship, disability, creed, family status, association with a person identified by a Code-protected ground, and reprisal.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated July 14, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which reads as follows:

19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

3In a letter dated April 5, 2011, the applicant asked that all hearings in relation to the Application be held in writing. The Case Assessment Direction accordingly directed that the summary hearing would be held in writing unless the applicant advised the Tribunal within 21 days of the Case Assessment Direction that he wished to make oral submissions. The Case Assessment Direction also directed the applicant to make submissions on the question of whether the Application should be dismissed on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. The applicant was directed to make those submissions no later than 21 days after the date of the Case Assessment Direction.

4The Case Assessment Direction was dated July 14, 2011 so the 21 day period referred to in the Case Assessment Direction has passed. The Tribunal has not received any communication since the Case Assessment Direction was issued. The summary hearing will accordingly be decided on the basis of the written materials on file.

BACKGROUND

5The applicant indicates that he has filed several Applications with the Tribunal. The current Application relates to the applicant’s contact with the HRLSC in regard to one or more of the previous Applications.

6The Application also named the Government of Ontario as a respondent. The Government of Ontario was named for failing to require the HRLSC to provide assistance to the applicant. The Government of Ontario provided a Response which was filed by Anita Lyon, Counsel with Ministry of the Attorney General. Ms. Lyon notes that the correct legal name to be used is Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, and the style of cause has been amended to reflect this.

The Allegations about the Government of Ontario

7Ms. Lyon submits that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed against the Government of Ontario. The only alleged involvement of the Government of Ontario is an alleged failure to direct the HRLSC to represent the applicant. Ms. Lyon points out that the HRLSC is established by section 45 of the Code, which provides that the Centre is not an agent of the Crown and is instead an independent corporation that is independent from the Government of Ontario.

8Because the HRLSC is an independent corporation that is not an agent of the Crown, it would not be proper for the Government of Ontario to instruct the Centre to provide legal services to an individual. The allegations in the Application concerning the Government of Ontario are limited to an alleged failure to instruct the HRLSC to provide representation to the applicant. On the basis of the written record before me, it is apparent that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed against the Government of Ontario.

The Allegations about the HRLSC

9According to the Application, the reason the HRLSC refused to provide further assistance to him was that it was representing the respondent in one of the earlier Applications filed by the applicant.

10The Response provided by the HRLSC includes a letter sent to the applicant on April 6, 2011 by Toby Young, who is the Centre’s Director of Legal Services. That letter clarifies that the Centre had a conflict of interest because Raj Anand, who was at the time the Chair of the Board of the HRLSC, had been retained privately by one of the respondents in respect of one of the earlier Applications. Mr. Anand was a private lawyer who was the Chair of the Centre’s Board. He was not an employee of the Centre. The letter goes on to state that because of the conflict, the applicant was referred to Danielle LiChong, a lawyer on the Centre’s pro bono panel. According to the letter:

I advised that Ms. LiChong was a volunteer lawyer and that she alone decided to what extent she would provide legal support services to you and that the Centre did not determine to what extent a pro bono lawyer provided legal support services as that was a matter of private retainer between yourself and Ms. LiChong. I advised that she was not required to represent you at your hearing nor provide you with written submissions and it appears that she decided that she was not in a position to be retained for that purpose.

11According to the Response filed by the HRLSC, prior to the referral to Ms. LiChong, the applicant was provided with legal support services and that he was also offered further legal assistance in April 2011.

12In the Application, the applicant alleges that the HRLSC refused to provide him with legal support services because he is not a new Canadian, because he has a disability, is a Quaker, a father and was a member of a union. However, the basis for these allegations and what caused him to conclude that any of these factors was relevant in respect of his interaction with the HRLSC has not been explained by the applicant.

13It appears that the reason that the applicant was not offered legal support services was that, at least for a short period of time, there was a conflict involving the Chair of the Centre’s Board. There is no apparent connection between this and any grounds of discrimination set out in the Code.

14On the basis of the information in the record before me, I conclude that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application as against the HRLSC could succeed.

ORDER

15The Application is dismissed because there is no reasonable prospect that it can succeed.