Vilner v. Zale Canada Co., 2013 HRTO 1170

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karina Vilner

Applicant

-and-

Zale Canada Co. and Donna Medd

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Afat Ahmadli

Applicant

-and-

Zale Canada Co. and Donna Medd

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 4, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1170

Indexed as: Vilner v. Zale Canada Co.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Karina Vilner, Applicant ) Self-represented

Afat Ahmadli, Applicant ) Karina Vilner, Representative

Zale Canada Co. and Donna Medd, ) Jeffrey Mitchell, Counsel Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1Applicant Vilner filed an Application on July 10, 2012, alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of race, ancestry and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Applicant Vilner alleges that she was subjected to anti-Semitic behaviour and that the respondents failed to address the situation. The applicant further alleges she was mistreated and dismissed for complaining about the discrimination. The respondents filed a Response on September 17, 2012 denying the allegations of discrimination and reprisal. The respondents assert that the applicant’s concerns were fully investigated. The respondents allege that the applicant’s employment was terminated for cause, including breach of confidential information and poor performance.

3Applicant Ahmadli filed an Application on August 27, 2012, alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin. The applicant alleges that there was pervasive racism in the workplace and that the respondents failed to address the situation. The applicant alleges that she was treated unfairly and dismissed for complaining about the discrimination. The respondents filed a Response on October 17, 2012 denying the allegations of discrimination and reprisal and asserting that the applicant’s employment was terminated for accessing and disclosing confidential information about another employee.

4The Applications were consolidated by Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 324. Since consolidation, it appears that applicant Vilner has been acting as the representative on behalf of applicant Ahmadli and filing correspondence and documentation on both of their behalves.

5The applicants have filed a request for anonymity which is opposed by the respondents. This issue remains outstanding and will not be addressed in this Interim Decision.

RESPONDENTS’ DISCLOSURE

6On June 11, 2013, applicant Vilner copied the Tribunal on her correspondence of the same date sent to respondents’ counsel regarding the applicants’ delivery of Rule 16 disclosure. In her letter, applicant Vilner noted that it had come to her attention that Jeffrey Mitchell, counsel for the respondents, was no longer practising with the firm Borden Ladner Gervais LLP and that the respondents had failed to file a notice of change representation with the Tribunal.

7On June 21, 2013, Jeffrey Mitchell wrote the Tribunal confirming that he is now practising with the law firm Dentons and that transfer the file has caused some delay in the respondents fulfilling its documentary disclosure. Consequently, the respondents requested “the Tribunal’s and the other parties’ indulgence” and indicated that the documentary disclosure would be filed shortly.

8The respondents have yet to comply with their obligations under Rules 16 to deliver a list and copies of their arguably relevant disclosure to the applicants and file with the Tribunal confirmation of the list.

9In Smith v. Camis, 2012 HRTO 1199, the Tribunal explained, at para. 5, that “[i]t is important for parties to adhere to the Tribunal’s Rules regarding disclosure so that each party is properly apprised of the case it has to meet and so that the Application may proceed in a timely and fair manner to a full hearing.”

10As such, the Tribunal directs the respondents to promptly comply with their disclosure obligations as required by the Tribunal Rules of Procedure.

APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE

11On June 23, 2013 applicant Vilner filed submissions on behalf of both applicants in reply to the respondents’ objection to the applicants’ request for anonymity. The June 23rd email cover notification identified applicant Vilner as “Barrister and Solicitor Karina R. Vilner”.

12The Tribunal notes that the applicant Ahmadli has not confirmed that Karina Vilner is her representative and that Karina Vilner has not provided a Law Society of Upper Canada registration number.

13The Tribunal’s Policy on Representation reads in relevant part as follows:

A party or witness before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) may be self-represented or represented by a lawyer or paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).

A party or witness may be represented by an unlicensed person if that person falls within a category the LSUC has exempted from its licensing requirements. The current exemptions permit an unpaid friend 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.

A licensed representative must provide her/his LSUC license number to the HRTO. The HRTO may ask an unlicensed representative to identify the LSUC category to which he or she belongs.

14The parties’ attention is also directed to the provisions of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, as amended and the Law Society By-Laws summarized in Hansen v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 13.

15Applicant Ahmadli is directed to confirm whether or not Karina Vilner is representing her. If so, Karina Vilner is directed to confirm her LSUC license number or the exemption under which she asserts she is entitled to represent applicant Ahmadli.

ORDERS

16Accordingly, the Tribunal orders as follows:

i. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents must deliver to the applicants a list and a copy of all arguably relevant documents. The respondents must also file with the Tribunal a copy of the list of arguably relevant documents. The respondents must file with the Tribunal a Statement of Delivery confirming the materials were delivered to the applicants;

ii. Within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, Applicant Ahmadli is directed to confirm whether or not Karina Vilner is representing her. If so, Karina Vilner is directed to confirm her LSUC license number or the exemption under which she asserts she is entitled to represent applicant Ahmadli; and

iii. The Tribunal may issue further directions and/or schedule further steps regarding any issue in this matter.

17I am not seized of this matter.