Di Virgilio v. 1210670 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 571

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio Applicant

-and-

1210670 Ontario Inc., cob as Scarborough City Cab Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio Applicant

-and-

Royal Taxi Inc. Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio Applicant

-and-

Beck Taxi Ltd., City of Toronto and Mohammed Bhatti Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio Applicant

-and-

Crown Taxi Inc. Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio Applicant

-and-

Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: March 19, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 571 Indexed as: Di Virgilio v. 1210670 Ontario Inc.

APPEARANCES BY

Alessia Di Virgilio, applicant ) Kingsley Laurin, Counsel )

1210670 Ontario Inc., Royal Taxi Inc., ) Beck Taxi Inc., Mohammed Bhatti, ) Carl W. Peterson, Counsel Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab ) Co-operative Ltd., respondents )

)

City of Toronto ) Rosanne Giulietti, Counsel

Crown Taxi Inc. ) No one appearing

1Further to a Case Assessment Direction issued on July 12, 2011, I directed that there would be an oral hearing via teleconference to deal with the following issues:

a. A request by the applicant that the Applications be consolidated;

b. A request by the City of Toronto that Application 2009-03084-I be dismissed against it on the basis that the allegation against it is based on a mistaken interpretation of the relevant licensing by-law and, therefore, has no chance of succeeding and/or has failed to set out a prima facie case;

c. A request by the applicant that the allegation against the City of Toronto in Application 2009-03084-I be amended; and

d. A request by the applicant to add an organizational respondent, Fareport Capital Inc. ("Fareport"), to Application 2009-03085-I

2The teleconference was heard on February 23, 2012. Counsel for the applicant, the City of Toronto and four of the five respondent companies participated, but no representative of either Crown Taxi Inc. or Fareport took part in the call, which meant that the issues of consolidation and adding Fareport to Application 2009-03085-I could not be addressed.

3The issues with respect to the City of Toronto were argued, but partway through his oral submissions, counsel for the applicant indicated that his client was withdrawing her allegations against the City of Toronto. Following the teleconference, the applicant filed a Request to Withdraw (Form 9). Leave was granted to withdraw as against the City of Toronto at the hearing. In light of this, it was not necessary to consider the applicant's Request to amend the allegations against the City of Toronto.

4Subsequent to the teleconference hearing, Tribunal staff contacted the office of D. Russ Makepeace, who is on record as being counsel for Crown Taxi Inc., to determine if Mr. Makepeace had notice of the February 23, 2012 teleconference. A representative of his firm advised that Mr. Makepeace had sent in notice to the Tribunal approximately a year ago that he was no longer counsel of record.

5There is no record of that correspondence in the Tribunal's file. It would also appear that the applicant's counsel has not been advised that Mr. Makepeace had asked to be removed as counsel of record as the Statement of Delivery attached to the applicant's recent Request to Withdraw shows Mr. Makepeace as the respondent's representative.

6In any event, Mr. Makepeace's office was advised that the Tribunal did not have a copy of the letter in which Mr. Makepeace asked to be removed as counsel of record, and was advised more than three weeks ago to send a copy of it in to the Tribunal. Despite this request, no such letter has been received. Mr. Makepeace is directed to provide notice to the Tribunal with respect to his status as counsel of record for the respondent Crown Taxi Inc.

7In light of the confusion concerning the representation of Crown Taxi Inc., a copy of this Interim Decision and the July 12, 2011 Case Assessment Direction will be mailed to Crown Taxi Inc. and Fareport Capital Inc., as well. These organizations are directed to advise the Tribunal if they are represented, and if so, the contact information for the representative(s) by March 30, 2012.

8The Tribunal is prepared to deal with the issue of consolidation in writing. The applicant has requested consolidation and counsel for Beck Taxi Inc., Mohammed Bhatti, 1210670 Ontario Inc., Royal Taxi Inc. and Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd. has indicated his clients' assent to the request. Crown Taxi Inc. and Fareport Taxi Inc. are directed to provide their position on consolidation by March 30, 2012.

9The Tribunal's Registrar will schedule a one-hour hearing by teleconference to determine: (1) whether Fareport should be added as a respondent to Application 2009-03085-I; and (2) whether Application 2009-03085-I should continue as against Capital.

10A Notice of Teleconference Hearing will follow from the Registrar's Office. The parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases they intend to rely upon no later than 14 days prior to the teleconference. If the remaining respondents do not wish to participate in this teleconference, they should advise the Registrar of this.

ORDER/DIRECTION

11In summary, I have issued the following order/directions:

a. The applicant's request to withdraw against the City of Toronto in Application 2009-03084-I is granted;

b. The office of D. Russ Makepeace is directed to provide notice to the Tribunal with respect to his status as counsel of record for the respondent Crown Taxi Inc. in Application 2009-03085-I;

c. A copy of this Interim Decision and the July 12, 2011 Case Assessment Direction will be sent directly to Crown Taxi Inc. and Fareport Capital Inc., which are directed to advise the Tribunal of the name and contact information of their respective representatives, if any, by March 30, 2012;

d. Crown Taxi Inc. and Fareport Capital Inc. are directed to provide their position on consolidation by March 30, 2012;

e. The Tribunal's Registrar will schedule a one-hour hearing by teleconference to determine the outstanding issue of the naming of the proper respondent(s) in Application 2009-03085-I; and

f. The respondents in the remaining Applications should advise the Registrar if they do not wish to participate in this teleconference.

12I am not seized of this matter.