Williams v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 HRTO 127

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Williams

Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada and Glenda Perry

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: January 27, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 127

Indexed as: Williams v Law Society of Upper Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Williams, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on November 3, 2015 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In the Application, the applicant alleges that he has been discriminated against in respect of goods, services and facilities and contracts on the grounds of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, gender identity, family status and reprisal. The applicant alleges that his complaint is about the individual respondent, the Family Responsibility Office, and Duty Counsel for Toronto courts. He alleges that the Law Society has refused to properly monitor the individual respondent or take action on complaints made in 2008.

3The allegations appear to be based on a decision of an Ontario court in which it made an ex parte order striking the applicant’s pleadings and ordering him to pay legal costs. He states that the materials filed by the other party in this court proceeding were prepared by the individual respondent against whom he is alleging a breach of the Code in this Application. He states that there was no proof provided to support the amount of costs that were awarded. The applicant also alleges that the documents filed with the court provided false information about his divorce and that he has been unable to obtain the court file because it has been missing for several years. He states:

I am going to ignore the racism (sic) comments and also the fact that my religion was changed to Muslim for the uncontested court trial in October 2008.

4There are no allegations of discrimination against the Family Responsibility Office or Duty Counsel.

5On December 2, 2016, the Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) indicating that it appears that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following two reasons:

• the issues raised relate to the conduct of a lawyer representing a party in another proceeding;
• the alleged incidents appear to have occurred more than one year prior to the date when the Application was filed; and
• the allegations fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

6The applicant was directed to provide submissions to respond to the issues on or before January 15, 2016.

7The applicant filed timely submissions but did not address the issues raised in the NOID. He refers to an encounter at a subway station which led him to believe he needs to continue this Application as he alleges the individual respondent is acting as if she is above the law.

analysis and decision

8At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. I find that it is plain and obvious that the applicant’s claims against the respondents fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

9The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over violations of rights with respect to the social areas and the grounds set out in the Code. It does not have jurisdiction over general claims of unfairness, fraud, or improper court proceedings.

10I find that it is plain and obvious that the allegations the applicant has made have no connection to the Code. It is also plain and obvious that there is no service relationship or contract between the applicant, the Law Society, or the individual respondent that can be protected by the Code. In addition, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to address this Application as it was filed more than one year after the date of the last alleged incident.

Allegation Against The Law Society and Individual Respondent

11The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the social areas of “employment”, “goods, services and facilities”, in “accommodation”, in “contracts” and in “membership in vocational associations” on the basis of certain protected grounds listed in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all relationships and all difficulties that may occur in those relationships, but rather only those that properly fall within one of the five social areas of the Code.

12The applicant provides no facts which link the actions of either respondent to a breach of any of the Code grounds identified in the Application.

13In addition, the Tribunal has determined that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Code. See Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757 and Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390. In this Application, there is no suggestion that the individual respondent was providing either goods or facilities to the applicant or that there is a “services” relationship between the applicant and the individual respondent, who it appears was acting as opposing counsel. In the circumstances, the relationship between the individual respondent and the applicant is not covered by the provisions of the Code or subject to review by the Tribunal. There is also no service relationship between the applicant and the Law Society. The Law Society’s decision to pursue a complaint against a lawyer is an adjudicative function over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

14I find that it is “plain and obvious” that this Application falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Delay

15The applicant indicates that his concerns about the actions of the individual respondent occurred in October 2008 and that he made a complaint about this to the Law Society in 2008.

16Although he was requested to address the issue of delay in the NOID, the applicant’s submissions do not explain why he did not file this Application until November 2013. As a result, it is plain and obvious that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to address this Application which was filed more than seven years after the alleged incidents.

Order

17Based on the Application and the Applicant’s submissions, it is plain and obvious that the Application falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This Application is therefore dismissed.