SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
Re: ANTHONY COOTE Moving Party (Applicant)
- and -
ASSANTE CORPORATION, MICHAEL MILLER, HILARY HURRY. HUMARA DEEN, STACEY BLYTHE, ROBIN DAVIDSON, MARTIN WEINBERG, NICK MANCINI, ERIC STEPHANSON, BOB DORRELL, BRUCE WARNOCK, TIM PYOR, CELIA E. GORLICK and THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS et al Responding Parties (Respondents)
- and -
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, BARBARA HALL, KEN NORTON, ROXANNE KALIMOOTOO, NANCY AUSTIN, NEIL EDWARDS, PART TIME COMMISSIONERS, DINA WAIK, SHANNON LEE-MEADOWS et al Responding Parties (Respondents)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN , MR. MICHAEL BRYANT, PREMIER McGUINTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL (MURRAY SEGAL), PROVINCE OF ONTARIO et al Responding Parties (Respondents)
Before: CAPUTO, GANS, SWINTON JJ.
Counsel: Anthony Coote, Unrepresented Adrian Miedema and Christine Hall, for Assante Corporation Amy Leaman for the Responding Parties, Her Majesty the Queen, Mr. Michael Bryant, Premier McGuinty, Deputy Attorney General (Murray Segal) and Province of Ontario Sharon Ffolkes-Abrahams, for the Ontario Human Rights Commission
Heard at Toronto: October 5, 2007
The Court:
Nature of the Motion
1This is a motion by the Applicant, Anthony Coote, pursuant to s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43 for an order that a panel of the Divisional Court set aside or vary the decision of Lane J. made on the 14th of May 2007. That decision was rendered after a day and half hearing on the 2nd and 21st days of March last, the reasons for which are set out in a detailed endorsement.
2For ease of reference, we incorporate the short form descriptions of the party respondents found both in the above mentioned endorsement and the formal Court order.
3The Applicant asks that we set aside Lane J.’s order and asks that we:
a) reinstate his application for judicial review against the Crown Respondents and permit further references to these respondents in the application;
b) reinstate his application for judicial review against the First Co-Respondents, namely the named and unnamed employees of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“OHRC”) and permit further references to these respondents in the application;
c) reinstate his application against certain employees of the Respondent Corporation and permit further references to these respondents in the application;
d) permit the Applicant to refer to and rely on an affidavit he swore and purported to file in support of the application for judicial review;
e) reinstate his claim for damages as part or incidental to his application for judicial review;
f) permit the Applicant to proceed with certain ancillary motions, including, inter alia, motions for the delivery of documents said to reveal a variety of information referable to the Applicant’s position, contempt proceedings against certain of the respondents and to permit reference to certain solicitors retained by the Respondent Corporation in the material in the application record.
4The Applicant also sought damages against the motions judge and the moving parties. At the outset of the hearing, we informed him that such relief was not available on a motion pursuant to s. 21(5).
Brief Chronology Leading to the Application for Judicial Review
5The Applicant was hired by the Respondent Corporation as a temporary contract employee for the 2003 RRSP season on a fixed term contract, which was set to expire in the middle of April of that year. He was discharged from his employment in mid-March and given a severance package.
6He lodged a complaint with the OHRC in late May, 2003 in respect of the termination alleging that it was motivated simply by a consideration of his race, colour and ancestry. The Respondent Corporation denied the allegations in its response to the OHRC in October 2003. The Applicant proceeded to file an amended complaint in April 2004.
7The Commission staff (“Staff”) prepared a Case Analysis Report, in the normal course, which was sent to a panel of the OHRC as a pre-cursor to a decision as to whether or not the matter should be remitted for hearing before the Tribunal. Staff conducted an investigation, which included interviews of the Applicant, several of the originally named individual respondents and five third party witnesses, all of whom had been colleagues of the Applicant.
8Staff concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the Applicant had been treated unequally or had been harassed in the workplace because of his race, ancestry or colour. It recommended that the subject complaint not be referred further to the Human Rights Tribunal.
9After receiving further submissions from each of the Applicant and the Respondent Corporation, the OHRC decided, pursuant to s. 36(2) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended, (“Code”) that the evidence in the case did not warrant a referral of the matter to a Tribunal. A reconsideration of this decision was requested by the Applicant, which request was denied by the OHRC in a subsequent decision made in October, 2006. The Applicant, thereupon, launched an application for judicial review the following December, seeking, among other things an order setting aside the decisions of the OHRC referenced above.
10This now brings us to the motion before Lane J. last March, from which order the Applicant now seeks the above stated relief.
Analysis and Decision
11At the outset, we acknowledge that the applicable section of the Courts of Justice Act, supra, vests a panel of the Divisional Court with all the powers of a single judge with respect to the proper disposition of the motion at first instance (See Overseas Missionary Fellowship v. 578369 Ontario Ltd. (1990), 1990 6771 (ON CA), 73 O.R. (2d) 73 at 75 (C.A.)).
12We have reviewed the vast array of material filed before us, the volumes of cases and articles filed by the Applicant and counsel for the Respondents, and, of course, the reasons of Lane J. We have, as well, considered the detailed oral argument of the Applicant, which repeated and amplified upon his written argument.
13The arguments advanced by the Applicant do not persuade us that the impugned order was not proper in all respects. While we do not intend to traverse each one of the arguments advanced by the Applicant, which we have considered, we are in agreement with the conclusions embodied in the order of Lane J. for the reasons set out in his endorsement and see no reason why such should be interfered with. His conclusions on all aspects of the challenged order are unassailable and well founded both in the record before him and at law.
The motion is, therefore, dismissed.
14If costs of the Respondents are demanded, we ask that each Respondent furnish the Court Registrar with a request for same within 7 days from the date of this Endorsement, with a copy to the Applicant, which request shall be limited to but 1 page each. The Applicant will have a further 7 days to respond to any costs submissions, which response shall be limited to 3 pages in the aggregate.
Caputo J.
Gans J.
Swinton J.
Released: October , 2007