Rizzo v. Guelph (City), 2014 HRTO 1737

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mike Rizzo

Applicant

-and-

City of Guelph

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Jean-Marie Nijs

Applicant

-and-

City of Guelph and City of Guelph Police Services Board

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 2, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1737

Indexed as: Rizzo v. Guelph (City)

APPEARANCES

Mike Rizzo, Applicant

Self-represented

Jean-Marie Nijs, Applicant

Self-represented

City of Guelph, Respondent

Susan Smith, Counsel

City of Guelph Police Services Board, Respondent

Judith Stoffman, Counsel

1These are two Applications filed by the applicants alleging discrimination with respect to services because of place of origin, citizenship, disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) by the two organizational respondents above and a number of individuals.

2In two Case Assessment Directions issued on March 12 and July 23, 2014 respectively, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether all or part of these Applications should be dismissed because all or part of them had no reasonable prospect of success.

3A summary hearing was held on November 26, 2014 by telephone confence call. Due to administrative error on the Tribunal’s part there was a brief delay in the summary hearing starting because the parties had been given the wrong call in information.

4Mr. Rizzo attended on his own behalf and also indicated that he was representing the applicant Jean Marie Nijs, his spouse. The respondents were represented by counsel who were both in attendance. The summary hearing began with my outlining the issues to be dealt with at the hearing.

5Mr. Nijs called in shortly after the hearing had begun. I welcomed him and indicated that the proceeding had commenced and then invited counsel for the City of Guelph to continue her submissions on a procedural point related to the treatment of these two Applications.

6Mr. Nijs interrupted counsel’s submissions stating amongst other thigns that counsel for the respondents were criminals and were not allowed to participate in these proceedings. Although couched in entirely inappropriate terms I allowed Mr. Nijs to continue and then without calling on the other parties ruled that counsel were entitled to represent their clients and participate in the summary hearing.

7Mr. Nijs challenged my ruling in entirely inappropriate terms. I indicated to Mr. Nijs that it was my role to make rulings in the procceding, not his, and that I had made the ruling. Mr. Nijs continued to make inappropriate comments about respondents’ counsel, the Tribunal and myself. I asked that Mr. Nijs cease making further comments about counsel as I had made my decision on the issue.

8Mr. Rizzo attempted to intervene without success.

9Mr. Nijs repeatedly interjected with inappropriate comments about counsel and the Tribunal and indicated that he would not participate further in a corrupt and criminal process. Mr. Nijs was not allowing the case to proceed. I directed that while he was entitled to his opinions I would no longer entertain them and asked him to keep them to himself so that we could continue. Mr. Nijs accused me of treating him like a child and yelling at him.

10When Mr. Nijs had finished his comments I asked if we could continue, as did Mr. Rizzo. Hearing nothing further from Mr. Nijs I indicated that I was prepared to proceed, with Mr. Rizzo representing Mr. Nijs for the purposes of this proceeding. Mr. Nijs indicated that Mr. Rizzo was not his representative. Mr. Rizzo sought Mr. Nijs consent to represent him which was denied several times.

11Mr. Nijs then repeated his view that the process was corrupt, that the Tribunal was corrupt and that I and the Tribunal were discriminating against him. Mr. Nijs then left the call.

12Despite what had occurred I was prepared to proceed. I turned again to counsel for the City of Guelph. Moments later Mr. Rizzo left the call without warning or explanation.

13In the circumstances I directed that we would wait for a few moments in the event that Mr. Rizzo’s leaving the call was inadvertent. The time was approximately 9:45 a.m.

14At 10:00 a.m. I reconvened the hearing. I invited the submissions of the respondents. Both indicated that the Applications should be dismissed.

15I agreed and orally dismissed the Applications as abandoned at the hearing with brief reasons to follow as set out below.

16Despite the somewhat unusual circumstances described briefly above, I find that there is no question that both applicants had notice of the hearing, they both participated, Mr. Nijs after a fashion. Mr. Nijs left stating that he would not participate further in a corrupt and criminal proceeding. He refused to allow Mr. Rizzo to represent him. Mr. Rizzo then left the call with no explanation. In the circumstances, I held the hearing down in the event that Mr. Rizzo’s departure was inadvertent. When I reconvened the hearing at 10:00 a.m., after waiting a further 15 minutes, neither applicant was in attendance. In all of the circumstances I found that the applicants had chosen to abandon their Applications and accordingly they were both dismissed.

17In the circumstances, there would be no public purpose served by identifying any of the individuals identified by the applicants as personal respondents in these proceedings and I decline to do so. I anticipate that they will all be notified of this Decision by counsel who represented them at the hearing.