Murugesan v. CIBC Mortgages Inc., 2015 HRTO 1430

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Prakash Murugesan

Applicant

-and-

CIBC Mortgages Inc., Gerald McCaughey, Brent Belzberg, Gary Colter, Dominic D'Alessandro, Patrick Daniel, Luc Desjardins, Gordon Giffin, Linda Hasenfratz, Kevin Kelly, Nicholas Le Pan, John Manley, Jane Peveret, Leslie Rahl, Charles Sirois, Katharine Stevenson, Ronald Tysoe, Jacqueline Moss and

John Silverthorn

Respondents

-and-

Great West Life

Proposed Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 26, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1430

Indexed as: Murugesan v. CIBC Mortgages Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Prakash Murugesan, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Hicks Morley law firm not be allowed to represent any client at the Tribunal because Laurie Reesor, a partner of that firm, sits on the Tribunal’s Practice Advisory Committee.

2It is a fundamental requirement of procedural fairness that an adjudicator be free of any reasonable apprehension of bias. The legal principles to be considered are well established and are captured in this often cited passage from Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1976] 1. S.C.R. 369 at p. 394:

… the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it more likely than not that [the decision maker] whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.

3In Guilmoutdinov v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2009 HRTO 2130, the Tribunal found that no conflict of interest or reasonable apprehension of bias arises from the fact that a member of the Tribunal’s Practice Advisory Committee appears in cases before the Tribunal. As the Tribunal’s former Associate Chair stated in Guilmoutdinov:

The mandate of the Practice Advisory Committee (whose Terms of Reference are also posted on the Tribunal’s website www.hrto.ca) is to function as a resource to the Tribunal for consultation and feedback from those in the community it serves regarding its policies, practices, rules, practice directions and services. It is specifically designed to have representation from the perspectives of different persons who regularly appear or represent parties before the Tribunal. One of the co-chairs represents the perspective of applicants and the other represents the perspective of respondents. Its membership is specifically balanced among individuals who represent each of these perspectives. This type of committee is frequently used by tribunals to promote responsiveness to the communities they serve. Its membership does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias in the Tribunal.

4I agree with these conclusions and adopt them. For this same result, see Mitchinson v. Niagara Child and Youth Services, 2012 HRTO 1446.

ORDERS

5For the above reasons, the applicant’s request that no lawyer from Hicks Morley be permitted to appear before the Tribunal is denied.