HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Linda Brown
Applicant
- and-
Paula Meier Associates Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie
Indexed as: Brown v. Paula Meier Associates Inc.
1The respondent to this Application has a representative who does not appear to be either a lawyer or a licensed paralegal. On December 13, 2011, the Tribunal asked the respondent’s representative to provide a Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) license number or explain how he fits within the exemptions established by the LSUC. The representative was given until December 28, 2011 to provide this information. He has failed to do so.
2The representative is Trueman Tuck. Correspondence from Mr. Tuck is from Tuck’s Professional Services. Its letterhead identifies it as “Non-Lawyer Professionals”.
3The Tribunal’s Policy on Representation before the HRTO states that a party may be represented by an unlicensed person only if that person falls within a category of exemptions identified by the LSUC. The Law Society Act states that a person who is not a licensee of the LSUC may only practise law or provide legal services in Ontario to the extent permitted by the by-laws of the LSUC. The relevant by-law (By-law 4, s. 30(1)), sets out various individuals who may, without a license, provide legal services in Ontario The current exemptions permit an unpaid friend, neighbour or family member, an employee or volunteer from a trade union, and students, volunteers and employees of Legal Aid clinics, among others, to act as a representative.
4From the information on file, it does not appear that the representative falls under any of the exemptions allowed by the LSUC.
5The Policy on Representation further states that a person who is not licensed or who is not in an exempted category will not be permitted to act as a representative in an HRTO proceeding.
6Accordingly, the respondent will be regarded by the Tribunal as unrepresented and Mr. Tuck will no longer be copied on correspondence from the Tribunal. If the respondent retains a licensed representative or obtains a representative who falls within the exemptions identified by the LSUC, it must advise the Tribunal and the applicant.
ORDER
7The Tribunal makes the following order:
a. The respondent is to be regarded as unrepresented until such time as it advises that it has retained a licensed representative or a representative that falls within the exemptions identified by the LSUC.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of January, 2012.
“Signed by”
Ian R. Mackenzie
Vice-chair