Lin Lin v. William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation, 2014 HRTO 1380

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin Lin

Applicant

-and-

William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation and William Rock

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: September 17, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1380

Indexed as: Lin Lin v. William Rock Medicine Professional Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Katherine Lin Lin, Applicant

Self-represented

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 sex. It will be heard on March 17 and 18, 2015 in Ottawa.

2In Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 989 dated July 7, 2014 the Tribunal denied the applicant’s requests to change the venue of the hearing to Toronto, to have the Ontario Human Rights Commission monitor the Application and to have the member who conducted an attempt to mediate this Application assigned to conduct the hearing.

3On July 22, 2014 the applicant filed a request to have the Tribunal reconsider the earlier requests she made. In that request she claimed that the Tribunal member who decided 2014 HRTO 989 was incompetent and deliberately ignored the terms of the Code and the Tribunal’s own Rules of Procedure.

4In Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1277 I denied that request. In doing so I refrained from saying anything about the inappropriate comments made by the applicant regarding the Tribunal member who decided 2014 HRTO 989.

5The applicant has now filed another request, again asking that the decision on the original requests be reconsidered and asking “that a quality adjudicator” be assigned to deal with this request. She goes on to state that I am unprofessional and unqualified to deal with her request, and that the Tribunal’s process is corrupt.

6This request is denied for the same reasons that I gave in Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1277, namely that the Tribunal will not reconsider interim decisions.

7In addition, the applicant needs to be made aware of certain basic principles and adhere to them in all of her future dealings with the Tribunal and the respondents. The first is that she has an obligation to conduct herself with courtesy and respect for others, including the Tribunal. This requirement is set out in Rule A7.1 of the Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario Common Rules found in Part 1 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure. In Cochrane v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 913 at paras. 8-9, the Tribunal stated as follows:

Parties to a Tribunal application are engaged in a dispute which has been brought before the justice system. Before the Tribunal, as in courts and other tribunals, each side is entitled to access these dispute resolution processes, and may make submissions supporting their point of view. The Tribunal’s process provides access to a fair and neutral decision maker, who decides the application based upon his or her findings of facts and law as they apply to a particular case.

It is understandable that parties may have strong feelings about the events that gave rise to the dispute. They may disagree strongly with the submissions made by each other, be upset about the fact that the matter is before the Tribunal, or disagree with decisions made by the adjudicator. Parties and their representatives are required, however, to conduct themselves in the Tribunal’s process with courtesy and respect for each other and the Tribunal. While it is proper to express disagreement with another party’s submissions or evidence, it is never acceptable to descend into personal insults, the use of uncivil language, or discriminatory comments.

8The second principle the applicant is advised of is that the parties to a legal process are not entitled to pick and choose which adjudicators are assigned to hear and decide their cases. This is a fundamental principle that ensures the impartiality of the adjudicative process. An adjudicator may be required to step aside if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, but in the absence of that being established in accordance with the law relating to bias, the preference of a party as to who hears their case is irrelevant.

9The applicant has now been told twice by the Tribunal that her request to revisit her original requests has been denied. This issue will not be revisited a third time.

10Finally, the applicant needs to be aware that if she fails to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, the Tribunal may take steps to prevent an abuse of its process. This can include dismissing the application for abuse of process (see, Rule A8.1 of the Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario Common Rules found in Part 1 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure).

order

11The request is denied.

12The applicant is directed to ensure that all of her communications regarding this Application are to be courteous and respectful of the Tribunal and the other participants.