HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Zoran Backovic
Applicant
-and-
Jason Tam
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Backovic v Tam
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Zoran Backovic, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on March 14, 2016 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against in respect of goods, services and facilities on the basis of place of origin. The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondent. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) to the applicant.
2The Tribunal sent a NOID dated March 30, 2016 to the applicant. The NOID stated, in part, that the Application raised allegations about the conduct of a lawyer representing a party in another legal proceeding. The NOID advised that the Tribunal has stated that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Code: Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757; Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390.
3The Tribunal requested that the applicant provide written submissions responding to the issues identified in the NOID within 30 days. On April 10, 2016 the Tribunal received the applicant’s submissions.
4The applicant appears to be alleging that the respondent discriminated against him when the respondent wrote to the applicant to advise him that he was legal counsel for the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB). In that letter the respondent directed the applicant that any legal correspondence he had with the OLRB was to be sent to the respondent.
Analysis and Decision
5An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is delivered to the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 38. Having considered the information contained in the Application and the applicant’s further submissions I find that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and it is accordingly dismissed.
6In 2008 HRTO 390, (“Cooper”) the applicant was alleging that he was treated in a discriminatory manner by a defence lawyer, the named respondent, during a cross-examination in a legal proceeding and that such an examination constituted a service under the Code. However, in Cooper the Tribunal concluded that the conduct of the counsel did not constitute a service under the Code, stating in part at para. 11:
defence counsel is neither providing services to a larger public of which the applicant is a member nor is there a direct service relationship between defence counsel and a Crown witness. Rather, the role of defence counsel at a criminal trial puts that counsel into an adversarial position with all prosecution witnesses called by the Crown in order to secure a conviction of that counsel’s client. Even applying a large, liberal and purposive interpretation of the Code, it cannot be said that defence counsel is providing services to or is in a service relationship with an adverse witness, given the duty of that counsel to fully and fearlessly advance the interests of his client. In no way are the “services” provided by the defence counsel of benefit or of assistance to the prosecution witness.
7I agree with the reasoning in Cooper and find it applicable to the matter before me. I do not find that the respondent was providing a service or in a service relationship with the applicant on when he sent the letter to the applicant.
8The Application is, therefore, dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of April, 2016.
“signed by”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair