Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Michael Mitchell Applicant
-and-
Questrade Inc. and BBS Securities Inc. (Virtual Brokers) Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: February 4, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 162 Indexed as: Mitchell v. Questrade Inc.
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services and contracts because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he has a gambling dependency and maintains that the manner in which the respondents offer their services as securities brokers discriminates insofar as it encourages him to make trades with money that he does not have.
2This Interim Decision deals with whether to add a number of respondents named by BBS Securities as respondents, whether to amend the style of cause by changing the applicant’s name, and whether to hold a summary hearing.
3The applicant is an account holder with the respondent Questrade. He does not have an account with the respondent BBS Securities but describes himself as a prospective client in relation to that respondent.
Respondents identified by BBS Securities
4In filing its Response BBS Securities named QTrade Investor, TD Direct Investing, Scotia iTRADE, National Bank Direct Brokerage, CIBC Investor’s Edge, Disnat Classic, HSBC InvestDirect, Laurentian Bank Direct Brokerage, BMO InvestorLine, and RBC Direct Investing as respondents.
5On December 2, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to BBS Securities and advised it that a review of the Application and Response does not disclose any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by any of these organizations. For this reason BBS Securities was directed to provide the Tribunal with written submissions as to why the respondents it named should not be removed as respondents. The deadline for providing these submissions was January 16, 2014, and BBS Securities has not done so.
6There is nothing in the materials before the Tribunal which would justify adding any of QTrade Investor, TD Direct Investing, Scotia iTRADE, National Bank Direct Brokerage, CIBC Investor’s Edge, Disnat Classic, HSBC InvestDirect, Laurentian Bank Direct Brokerage, BMO InvestorLine and RBC Direct Investing as respondents. Accordingly they will not be added as respondents.
Applicant’s letter regarding the use of his name
7The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on December 9, 2013, asking that the style of cause be changed so that his first name is not used and his middle name is used instead. He says that he does not want any prospective employers to know that he has engaged in litigation. Although the applicant undertakes to provide his letter to the respondents, there is no evidence that he has done so.
8The issue raised by the applicant engages questions relating to the value of transparency in administrative justice. Accordingly, before the Tribunal considers this issue, the applicant is to make his request in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Rules are available on the Tribunal’s website at www.hrto.ca. In support of his request he is to provide evidence of his middle name.
Summary Hearing
9Having reviewed the materials filed in this Application, the Tribunal directs, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
10Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure read as follows:
19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.
11Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at paras. 8 and 9:
In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.
12In this case, the issue will be whether, assuming the allegations to be true, the applicant’s allegations may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
13The Registrar will schedule a half-day summary hearing by teleconference. The applicant will proceed first during this summary hearing. The applicant shall make argument about why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, and point to the evidence on which the applicant will establish a link to the alleged actions of each respondent. No witnesses will give evidence during the summary hearing.