Atas v. Sutton Group Realty Systems, 2014 HRTO 1678

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Nadire Atas Applicant

-and-

Sutton Group Realty Systems and Trevor Schultz Respondents

And Between:

Nadire Atas Applicant

-and-

Devonsleigh Paralegal Services Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: November 20, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1678 Indexed as: Atas v. Sutton Group Realty Systems

Written Submissions

Nadire Atas, Applicant Self-represented

Bent Legal Services, Respondent Reginald Bent, Counsel

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request to reactivate her deferred Applications. The applicant has brought two Applications. The Application in 2014-16985-I alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and record of offences contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Reprisal is also alleged. The Application in 2014-16986-I alleges discrimination in the provision of services because of disability.

2This Interim Decision also deals with requests by the applicant to add a respondent, anonymise her name in the Applications, and for some of the respondents to produce documents to her.

3The Applications were deferred on October 23, 2014. The reasons for deferral are set out in Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1569 and explain that the Applications are being deferred until a pending Superior Court of Justice civil action is resolved.

4The applicant says that the Applications were deferred without the Tribunal considering her submissions. This is correct, but her submissions were not considered because they were not filed on time. She did not provide them to the Tribunal until the day after the decision to defer was released.

5Now she requests reactivation of the Applications and has provided extensive submissions which deal with both the pending Superior Court action, as well as a number of pending Small Claims court proceedings. The submissions state that Code violations are not pleaded in the Superior Court action. This was already acknowledged in Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1569. The remainder of the submissions deal with how the various Small Claims court proceedings are being case managed. They also argue that the defences to the various actions are full of misrepresentations and that the defendants have not complied with court orders. The applicant argues that the Applications should be reactivated because the civil proceedings will all take a long time to be resolved.

6In my view it would not be appropriate to reactivate the Applications. The Applications and all of the civil litigation are about disputes over real estate commissions the applicant claims were not paid to her when working as a broker for the respondent Sutton Group, about the termination of her relationship as a broker and about the role of some of the respondents in seeking to garnishee the commissions to offset them against debts the applicant owed. The facts and issues in the Superior Court are bound up in the facts and issues in the various Small Claims court proceedings. The latter are being case managed and are ready to go to trial, as pleadings have been completed and a settlement conference has concluded.

7As indicated in 2014 HRTO 1569, deferral avoids the risk of conflicting determinations on facts and issues that are common to all the proceedings. The applicant’s submissions do not offer a reason for revisiting what was already determined in the original decision to defer. For this reason the request is denied.

8As the Applications are being deferred, it is not necessary at this stage to deal with the applicant’s requests for anonymisation or production of documents. The applicant is requesting anonymisation because she is concerned that the respondents are going to request documents relating to her medical history and use them in their defence of these Applications. This issue can be dealt with after the Applications are reactivated if it becomes necessary to do so. Similarly, issues relating to the production of documents do not need to be dealt with as long as the Applications are deferred.

9The applicant has requested that Bent Legal Services be added as a respondent to Application 2014-16986-I. Bent Legal Services appears to be the business name of a paralegal business run by Reginald Bent, who is licenced by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Mr. Bent was once employed by MCS Consultants, which was named by the applicant as a respondent.

10The applicant has not requested to add Mr. Bent as a personal respondent.

11Mr. Bent asserts, and the applicant does not dispute, that MCS Consultants no longer exists. He argues that Bent Legal Services should not be named as a respondent because it has not been incorporated and is not operating as a business.

12The criteria for adding a respondent to an Application are set out in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513 as follows:

(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

13In relation to the first criterion, it has not been alleged that Bent Legal Services existed at the time of the alleged discrimination and nor that it could subsequently be liable for any of the acts or omissions of MCS Consulting. As this first criterion has not been met, the request to add Bent Legal Services as a respondent is denied.

14As MCS Consulting no longer exists, the style of cause in 2014-16586-I is amended to remove MCS Consulting.

Order

15The request to reactivate the Applications is denied. The parties’ attention is directed to Tribunal Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure by which a party may seek to bring either Application back on after the conclusion of the other proceedings.

16The requests to anonymise information, to produce documents and to add Bent Legal Services as a respondent are denied.

17MCS Consulting is removed as a respondent from 2014-16986-I and the style of cause is amended accordingly.