Angelica Tesseris v. Pellark Dental Practice and Kim Sanzosti, 2013 HRTO 1143

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angelica Tesseris Applicant

-and-

Pellark Dental Practice and Kim Sanzosti Respondents

-and-

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 2, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1143 Indexed as: Tesseris v. Pellark Dental Practice

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Angelica Tesseris, Applicant Self-represented

Pellark Dental Centre and Kim Sanzosti, Respondents Christopher Sinal, Counsel

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Intervenor Jessica Amey, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of ethnic origin, marital status, and reprisal. The respondents have filed a Joint Response.

background

2In her Application, the applicant alleges that the respondents made certain representations about the applicant in a hearing pertaining to a physician before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. That physician is not named as a respondent in these proceedings.

3The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (“the CPSO”) filed a Request to Intervene in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It submits that the personal respondent and Dr. Chiu, the dentist for the corporate respondent, were summoned as witnesses by the prosecution to testify in a proceeding before the discipline committee of the CPSO pertaining to a physician. The applicant testified on behalf of the physician.

4The CPSO submits that the testimony of the personal respondent and Dr. Chiu is not admissible in proceedings before the Tribunal by virtue of section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18 (“the RHPA”). That section provides, amongst other things, that no statement given in a proceeding under the RHPA is admissible in a civil proceeding other than a proceeding under the RHPA. Further, the CPSO submits that the testimony before it is subject to the doctrine of absolute privilege.

5The CPSO seeks to be an intervenor in the Tribunal’s proceedings in ensuring that witnesses summoned to testify in CPSO proceedings can testify without fear of reprisal in the form of applications brought before the Tribunal on the basis of their testimony in proceedings before the CPSO.

6The applicant filed a Response to a Request for an Order opposing the CPSO’s request. She submits that CPSO is not a respondent to her Application; CPSO’s counsel does not represent the applicant in the Tribunal proceedings; and that the respondents “broke” Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

7The respondents filed a Response to a Request for an Order consenting to the CPSO’s request to intervene for the reasons set out in the CPSO’s submissions.

analysis

8In D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1187 at paragraph 12, the Tribunal stated:

In accordance with Rule 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine. Tribunal jurisprudence has articulated a number of factors for consideration in assessing a request for intervention:

i. Whether the intervenor has a significant interest or special contribution to make on the issues;

ii. Whether the intervenor is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that will not otherwise be provided;

iii. Whether the intervention will unduly delay, disrupt or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties; and

iv. If intervention is appropriate, are there conditions that should be placed on the intervention

9Given the allegations in the Application about the respondents making representations about her during their testimony in a CPSO proceeding, and that statutory protections raised by CPSO with respect to such testimony, CPSO’s Request to Intervene is granted and the style of cause is amended. See Farias v. Chuang, 2005 HRTO 22 and Pakarian v. University of Toronto, 2012 HRTO 156 at paras. 28 – 29. CPSO is an intervenor, not a respondent, and the extent to which the intervenor may participate during the Tribunal’s proceedings will be determined by the adjudicator conducting the hearing.

10I am not seized with this matter.