Cronier v. Securitas Canada Ltd., 2015 HRTO 243

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leo Cronier

Applicant

-and-

Securitas Canada Ltd., Cliff Sampogna and Michael Liao

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman

Date: February 27, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 243

Indexed as: Cronier v. Securitas Canada Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Leo Cronier, Applicant

Bradley Truax, Representative

Securitas Canada Ltd., Cliff Sampogna and Michael Liao, Respondents

Daniel McDonald, Counsel

1The hearing of this Application was held on January 29 and 30, 2015 and is scheduled to resume on March 2, 2015.

2The applicant’s licensed legal representative commenced, but did not complete examination-in-chief of the applicant on January 30, 2015. Just prior to the end of the hearing on that day, Mr. Truax stated that he and the applicant reside in the same house as “roommates”, but are not involved in a conjugal relationship.

3Counsel for the respondents expressed concern about the nature of the relationship between the applicant and his representative and suggested that this may give rise to a conflict of interest.

4In response to this concern, I invited the parties to provide me with written submissions prior to the March 2, 2015 continuation date. The Tribunal received written submissions and reply submissions from both parties.

5It is the respondents’ position that the applicant’s representative has a conflict of interest in this matter because there is palpable risk that he may engage in inappropriate or unauthorized communication with the applicant during the adjournment due to their cohabitation, and the applicant may provide the Tribunal with false or misleading evidence as a result of such prohibited communication.

6The respondents request that Mr. Truax be disqualified from representing the applicant in this matter; all evidence adverse to the respondents’ case arising from the examination and cross-examination be disqualified; and that the Tribunal takes other unspecified measures to further the interest of justice and the appearance of justice.

7In response, Mr. Truax denied that he has a conflict of interest or has engaged in any form of impropriety due to the fact he lives with the applicant, and suggests that the respondents’ submission is inappropriate and discriminatory because it implies that he and the applicant are involved in a sexual or romantic relationship.

8I find that the respondents’ suggestions are entirely speculative. The mere fact that the applicant and his legal representative reside together does not give rise to a conflict of interest. The risk of any inappropriate communication between Mr. Truax and the applicant is not materially greater than the risk of inappropriate communication between any client and his or her legal representative during the course of a Tribunal proceeding. Therefore, I do not find that any of the remedies requested by Mr. McDonald are appropriate in the circumstances. The respondents’ request is refused.

9I also note that Mr. Truax is a licensee of the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) and is governed by the Paralegal Rules of Professional Conduct. Any concerns relating to Mr. Truax’s conduct during the course of this proceeding may be brought to the attention of the LSUC.

10This matter will proceed on March 2, 2015 as scheduled.