McMillan v. Winners Merchants International LP, 2013 HRTO 701

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kalisha McMillan

Applicant

-and-

Winners Merchants International LP and Zeyna Erdogan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: April 25, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 701

Indexed as: McMillan v. Winners Merchants International LP

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Norman J. Groot, Respondent

Allison Taylor, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 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 race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and family status.

2The applicant, who describes herself as a black woman from Grenada, was employed by the corporate respondent (“Winners”) from November 2007 to February 8, 2012. The applicant alleges that during her employment she was subjected to unfair treatment and denied accommodation. The applicant alleges that her employment was terminated soon after she was coerced into signing a Restitution Agreement admitting fraud. The applicant also alleges that she was subjected to harassment when she later received a demand letter from the individual respondent Norman J. Groot, counsel for Winners, seeking payment of $1,000.00 as compensation for an investigation related to the alleged fraud.

3The respondents deny the allegations and assert that the applicant’s employment was terminated for cause.

4On April 5, 2013, individual respondent Norman J. Groot filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking that the Tribunal remove the individual respondent from Application for lack of jurisdiction. The individual respondent argues that the Tribunal cannot proceed with an Application against a lawyer acting in the course of his duties on behalf of an opposing party because of lack of jurisdiction and absolute privilege.

5The applicant did not file submissions in response to the RFOP.

DECISION

6The Tribunal has held that allegations pertaining to the conduct of a lawyer representing another party in another legal proceeding is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7Tribunal jurisprudence has consistently stated that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Code: Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390; Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757; Humphries v. General Electric of Canada, 2009 HRTO 1869; Surh v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 1700; Christianson v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2010 HRTO 1650; and Jaconello v. Unger, 2010 HRTO 789.

8As such, I find that the allegations made against individual respondent Norman J. Groot are not matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide.

9The Tribunal orders that Norman J. Groot is removed as a respondent from this Application and the style of cause is amended accordingly.