HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nadire Atas
Applicant
-and-
Law Society of Upper Canada
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Nadire Atas
Applicant
-and-
Dale and Lessmann LLP, Stikeman Elliot LLP and Law Society of Upper Canada
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Nadire Atas
Applicant
-and-
Peoples Trust Company
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Nadire Atas
Applicant
-and-
Ralph Steinberg and Law Society of Upper Canada
Respondents
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Atas v. Law Society of Upper Canada
1These are four Applications filed by the applicant in August 2011 alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and contract because of disability.
2This Decision explains why the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an Order that I remove myself from adjudication of this Application is denied. The issue was raised prior to the release of 2017 HRTO 1520 denying the applicants’ Request for Reconsideration of 2017 HRTO 649 and could have been included in those reasons but was not. Accordingly my reasons for denying the applicant’s further Request follow
3The respondent People’s Trust Company responded to the Request, opposing it.
Background
4There is an extensive procedural background to these cases which is set out in the Decision dismissing these Applications, 2017 HRTO 649, reconsideration denied 2017 HRTO 1520.
5The Supreme Court of Canada enunciated the principles to be applied in considering apprehension of bias in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at p. 394 as follows:
. . . the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through – conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.”
6In her Request the applicant asserts that there is a real apprehension of bias, evidence of actual bias and that I have made errors of fact and I have denied her procedural fairness.
7For example the applicant repeats her submission taking issue with the denial of her request for anonymization. The applicant is entitled to disagree but she has raised these issues on two prior occasions and they have been addressed. Her assertion that I failed to consider her submissions is inaccurate and the fact that I took a different view of the issue than a Court might is not evidence of bias.
8Morever as noted by the respondent much of the applicant’s complaint on this point relates to my decision in Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 894 issued on July 6, 2016. This Request was made over a year after that determination and many months after the release of the Final Decision. I agree with the submission of the respondent that allegations of bias should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and not months after the facts. See Guilmoutdinov v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2009 HRTO 2130 and the case cited there. The applicant submisions does not explain why she waited so long to raise these issues.
9The applicant makes a number of general allegations but the thrust of the applicant’s submissions are merely attempts to re-argue matters that were addressed in the Interim Decision, the final Decision and Reconsideration Decision above. The applicant does not agree with my conclusions in these decisions but that is not evidence of apprehended or actual bias.
10The applicant also argues that I misapprehended the evidence. The applicant claims that I was not certain that she had been a person with a disability. This is not accurate. It is also not an indication of bias. As previously indicated in the context of a summary hearing the assumption is made that the allegations of an applicant are capable or proof. As a practical matter this means that unless there was substantial reason to dispute an allegation it is assumed to be true for purposes of the summary hearing. Accordingly in the Decision and Reconsideration my reasons assume that the applicant was a person with a disability at the material times.
11The applicant makes a number of other submissions which take issue with my other conclusions. The fact that the applicant disagrees with my determinations is not evidence of bias.
12Finally the applicant asserts that I denied her procedural fairness in not granting her further extensions to file further materials in support of her Request for Reconsideration. The applicant asserts that I did not review the basis for her request. This is not accurate. In her Request for a further extension the applicant asserted that a knee injury prevented her from filing her further materials. There was no reference to any other medical issue being the reason for the request for ongoing extensions. I simply did not accept that the bald assertion of a knee injury was a reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay in filing materials, largely case law and statutory instruments apparently, by email that she had identified several months prior to her request. I also observe that the applicant was advised that if she was simply filing further adjudicative or legislative materials she could provide a list of these further materials and they would be reviewed. The applicant did not respond to this option.
13There is no basis for the applicant’s Request and for the reasons above it is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of December, 2017.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair