Martin v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, 2016 HRTO 608

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Martin

Applicant

-and-

Goodman and Griffin, Your Choice Realty Corp. Brokerage and Scotiabank (The Bank of Nova Scotia)

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Genevieve Debane

Date: May 6, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 608

Indexed as: Martin v. The Bank of Nova Scotia

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Martin, Applicant

Self-represented

1On November 26, 2015 the applicant filed Application 2015-22706-I against the Scotiabank (Bank of Nova Scotia), Goodman and Griffin, Barristers and Solicitors, and Your Choice Realty Corp. Brokerage.

2On January 8, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (the “NOID”) the Application as against Goodman and Griffin, Barristers and Solicitors (“Goodman and Griffin”), on the basis that the issues in the Application appeared to relate to the conduct of a lawyer representing another party in a legal proceeding. The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID.

Decision

3In order for the Code to apply, the allegations must relate to a social area. The Tribunal has stated many times that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party is not covered by the Code because there is no service relationship between them. See Belso v. York Regional Police, 2009 HRTO 757 and Cooper v. Pinkofskys, 2008 HRTO 390. The Tribunal has also found that the doctrine of absolute privilege prevents applicants from pursuing applications to this Tribunal concerning the conduct of opposing counsel in litigation. See G.A. v. York Region District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1787.

4Scotiabank demanded that the applicant pay his mortgage in full and, in this regard retained the legal services of Goodman and Griffin, to represent its legal interests. All of the allegations in the Application as against Goodman and Griffin are with respect to their representation of their client Scotiabank. Having reviewed the facts of this case I am satisfied that Goodman and Griffin was not providing a service to the applicant and as such it is plain and obvious that there is not service relationship between them.

Order

5The Tribunal orders:

a. The Application as against Goodman and Griffin, Barristers and Solicitors is dismissed because it is plain and obvious that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; and

b. The Tribunal shall remove Goodman and Griffin, Barristers and Solicitors from the title of proceeding of any future decision.

6I am not seized.