Tripathi v. Galldin Robertson Feminist Lawyers in Association, 2014 HRTO 681

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kiran Tripathi

Applicant

-and-

Galldin Robertson Feminist Lawyers in Association

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: May 13, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 681

Indexed as: Tripathi v. Galldin Robertson Feminist Lawyers in Association

APPEARANCES

Kiran Tripathi, Applicant

Self-represented

Galldin Robertson Feminist Lawyers in Association, Respondent

Leslie Robertson, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of gender identity and gender expression. Although the applicant did not check off the appropriate box, it appears from a review of the balance of the materials filed with the Application that she alleges discrimination on the ground of sex.

2Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction issued on September 27, 2013, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, directed that this matter be scheduled for a Summary Hearing under Rule 19 by teleconference. A letter confirming the date and time of the conference call was sent to the parties on October 22, 2013. The conference call was held on February 12, 2014.

3I have considered the materials filed by the parties and the submissions made by them during the conference call. The Application is dismissed as there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed for the reasons that follow.

decision

4Rule 19A.1 reads 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.

5In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 7-9, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:

A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.

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.

6The applicant argues that, despite holding itself out as a feminist legal practice, the respondent law firm declined to act for her in an action she wished to pursue against a third party, in which she alleged that she had been the victim of a sexual assault. She alleged that, in discussing her case, a lawyer from the respondent firm told her that courts don’t always believe women and then did not take her case forward. She argues that the statement and the firm’s refusal to act for her constitute an infringement of her rights under the Code.

7The respondent law firm argues that there is no link between any of the alleged acts and the Code. It points out that the written communications to which the applicant objects and to which she refers, which have been produced by the applicant, are self-explanatory. They provide an assessment of the risks of proceeding with the legal action and the costs associated with such proceedings, the last of which states that since the applicant has lost confidence in the firm, the retainer is being terminated.

8The respondent points out that there is no evidence available to the applicant that would establish differential treatment on either of the grounds cited or on the basis of sex. There is also no evidence of disadvantage resulting from the interaction between the applicant and the respondent law firm as the applicant was reminded of the limitation period for commencing her claim against the third party and provided with a draft claim.

9I find, having reviewed the materials filed and having heard the parties’ submissions, that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success. While the applicant is upset by the information provided to her by the respondent law firm, she has not alleged any facts that would establish that she experienced differential treatment on the basis of a ground under the Code that resulted in any disadvantage to her.

10The communications between the respondent law firm and the applicant are, as the respondent argued, confirmations of conversations between the parties. They outline the risks and costs of proceeding with litigation and include a discussion of whether courts accept the positions and evidence advanced by female plaintiffs in similar situations as part of the risk assessment. There is nothing in the documents or the arguments advanced by the applicant during the conference call that would assist her in establishing an infringement of her rights under the Code.

11Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.