Davidson v. Condominium Management Group, 2016 HRTO 1332

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Harel Davidson

Applicant

-and-

Condominium Management Group, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 73, Andrea Burns, Pat Gosson, Lisa Bedard, Susan Marthaler and Kevin Wiltshire

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: October 14, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1332 Indexed as: Davidson v. Condominium Management Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Harel Davidson, Applicant Self-represented

Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP, Respondent Susanne Sviergula, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the request filed by Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP (“law firm”) to have this Application dismissed against it.

2The applicant filed this Application against the respondents and the law firm alleging discrimination and reprisal in housing contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). In addition to this Application, the applicant has also filed two other applications against most of the same respondents on behalf of other condominium owners (File Nos. 2016-23657-I; 2016-24006-I).

3By Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 1218, the Tribunal dismissed the Applications in File Nos. 2016-23657-I and 2016-24006-I as against the law firm on the basis that these applications did not fall under a social area covered by the Code. In particular, the Tribunal held that there was no service relationship between the applicant and the law firm.

4The law firm requested that the Tribunal remove it as a respondent to this Application for the same reasons the Tribunal gave for removing it as a respondent to the other two applications filed by the applicant. The applicant sought to distinguish this Application from the two other applications he filed.

Findings

5The Application is dismissed as against the law firm for the same reasons given by the Tribunal in Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 1218. I do not agree with any of the reasons the applicant gave for distinguishing the circumstances in this Application from the other two applications he filed. The applicant is not in a service or housing relationship with the law firm. Therefore, the Application as against the law firm does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Code.

6As noted in Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 1218, Tribunal jurisprudence has consistently held that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Code. See for example Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390; McMillan v. Winners Merchants International LP, 2013 HRTO 701; Traversy v. Mississauga (City), 2013 HRTO 835; Humphries v. General Electric of Canada, 2009 HRTO 1869; and Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757; Marsden v. Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41 (Board of Directors), 2013 HRTO 1462.

7The applicant never retained the law firm to represent him. The law firm is retained to represent Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 73 (“the Condominium Corporation”). The applicant sought to rely upon some invoices issued by the law firm to the Condominium Corporation to argue that the law firm provided him services. In fact, the invoices were issued by the law firm to the Condominium Corporation charging it legal fees for the time spent by one of the firm’s lawyers reviewing correspondence sent by the applicant. The Condominium Corporation sought reimbursement for these legal fees from the applicant.

8The fact that the applicant sent correspondence to the law firm and the law firm reviewed the correspondence on behalf of its client, the Condominium Corporation, does not establish a service relationship between the law firm and the applicant. The law firm is representing its client which is adverse in interest to the applicant in this matter. Likewise, the fact that the Condominium Corporation sought to be reimbursed for these legal fees from the applicant does not create a service relationship between its counsel and the applicant.

9For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as against the law firm.

request to consolidate

10The respondents requested that the Tribunal consolidate this Application and hear it together with the two other applications filed by the applicant. These two other applications are proceeding to a hearing whereas the parties to this Application agreed to mediation. The Tribunal will rule on the respondents’ request to consolidate if the mediation in this case is unsuccessful.

order

11Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP is removed as a respondent to the Application. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.

12I am not seized of this matter.