Zakharia v. London Health Sciences Centre, 2013 HRTO 2079

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sonya Zakharia

Applicant

• and-

London Health Sciences Centre

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: December 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2079

Indexed as: Zakharia v. London Health Sciences Centre

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on September 10, 2013, alleging reprisal with respect to employment.

2The Application is filed against the applicant’s former employer, London Health Sciences Centre, and a law firm representing the applicant’s employer, Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP. The applicant alleges that a lawyer of the respondent law firm, acting on behalf of her employer, threatened legal action against her and her representative in relation to another legal proceeding.

3On September 18, 2013, the Tribunal issued to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application as against the respondent law firm. The Notice indicated that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the issues raised in the Application relate to the conduct of a lawyer representing a party in another legal proceeding. The Notice referred the applicant to the Tribunal jurisprudence which has stated that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Code: see, Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757; Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390.

4The Tribunal’s Notice directed the applicant to provide written submissions no later than October 21, 2013 addressing the issue of jurisdiction. The Notice further stated that if the applicant did not file written submissions by that deadline the Tribunal may make its decision based only on the information in the Application and/or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application.

5The applicant did not file submissions with respect to the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the allegations against the respondent law firm. The timeline for filing submissions has elapsed.

6The applicant was notified that the Application as against the respondent law firm may be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant failed to file written submissions by the requisite deadline. Accordingly, given the applicant’s failure to file submissions, the Application is dismissed as against the respondent law firm and the style of cause is amended accordingly.