McNulty v. Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1550

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kelly McNulty

Applicant

-and-

Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: November 16, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1550

Indexed as: McNulty v. Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kelly McNulty, Applicant

Self-represented

Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, Respondent

Elizabeth Cowie, Counsel

1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application should be dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

2On May 19, 2015, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent discriminated against her with respect to membership in a self-governing profession. Specifically, she alleged that the respondent sent her a letter dated November 25, 2014 refusing her readmission to membership.

3On July 15, 2015, the respondent filed a Response which denied the allegation of discrimination and requested that the Application be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code because the proceeding before the Membership Committee of the respondent appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondent attached the Decision and Reasons of the Membership Committee dated November 20, 2014 to its Response.

4On July 23, 2015, the applicant filed a Reply, which stated that she is not aware of any organization that is exempt from human rights law.

5On August 26, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), which stated at para. 5:

In my view, the threshold issue that needs to be addressed is whether the Application should be dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of adjudicative immunity. The applicant is alleging that the Decision of the Membership Committee was discriminatory. This Tribunal has consistently held that the doctrine of adjudicative immunity applies to both courts and administrative tribunals. See, for example, Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180; Bin Slama v. Certified Management Accountants of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 1027; and Taucar v. University of Western Ontario, 2013 HRTO 597.

6The CAD directed the parties to file written submissions addressing this issue. Both parties filed submissions.

7In her submissions, the applicant stated that the doctrine of adjudicative immunity is not applicable because the respondent is a private organization which is not accountable to the government or the public, and the Membership Committee is not an administrative tribunal.

8I disagree. The Membership Committee is not a private internal process established by the respondent without formal guarantees of procedural fairness, impartiality, or independence. Rather, it is a creature of statute which owes a duty of procedural fairness and whose decisions are subject to judicial review. See ss. 6-20 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Sched. C. and College of Nurses v. Trozzi, 2011 ONSC 4614 at para. 37. Therefore, I find that the Membership Committee, whose Decision the applicant is alleging is discriminatory, is an administrative tribunal, and that the doctrine of adjudicative immunity is applicable to its Decision.

9The Application is dismissed.