Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 13256/REBBA
Appeal from a Notice of Proposal of the Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, to Revoke a Registration.
Between:
Susan Toughlouian
Appellant
and
Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002
Respondent
MOTION ORDER
Order made by: Monica Ciriello, Vice Chair
BACKGROUND
1The appellant, appeals from a Notice of Proposal, dated March 25, 2021, brought by the respondent, the Registrar appointed under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002 (“Act”), to revoke the appellant’s registration as a salesperson under the Act.
2The respondent alleged that the appellant’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that she will not carry-on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.
3The appellant exercised her right to a hearing.
4A videoconference hearing is scheduled for 5 days: September 13, 14, 16, 21 and 22, 2022.
NOTICE OF MOTION
5The appellant sent an email to the Tribunal on February 3, 2022, requesting:
a. That the Tribunal assign a female adjudicator to the hearing.
6The appellant filed a Notice of Motion and related Accommodation Request Form, dated March 21, 2022, seeking the following relief:
a. An order that the Tribunal assign a female adjudicator to the hearing.
7On April 12, 2022, the Tribunal responded to the appellant via email stating that the Tribunal would assign a female adjudicator to the hearing.
8The respondent was not advised of the Notice of Motion and Accommodation Request until August 2022.
9On August 12, 2022, the respondent submitted arguments to the Tribunal in opposition to the Notice of Motion and Accommodation Request.
PARTIES’ POSITIONS
10The Accommodation Request form submitted to the Tribunal by the appellant stated, “I would like a request to obtain a female adjudicator for my trial.”
11The respondent opposed the request. The respondent argued that it is problematic and inappropriate for a party to request an adjudicator to be assigned based on their gender, or any other personal characteristic for that matter (such as creed, ethnic origin, race, age, sexual orientation). The respondent also raised the concern that there were no reasons or justifications provided in the Accommodation Request form submitted by the appellant as to why a female adjudicator was required to ensure procedural fairness.
12In reply on August 12, 2022, the appellant informed the Tribunal that, her “case is open/shut case of sexism, misogyny, unaddressed sexual harassment that the board is unwilling to outline and gaslight my circumstances so [the respondent] can confidentially win a case.” Furthermore, the appellant stated that the fact that the respondent challenges her right to a female adjudicator speaks volumes.
ANALYSIS
13Rule 3.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “LAT Rules”) requires the Tribunal to conduct its proceedings in a fair, proportional, and efficient manner that allows disputes to be decided on the merits of the case.
14Rule 7 of the LAT Rules states that parties are “entitled to accommodation of Ontario Human Rights Code-related needs”.
15Section 1 of the Human Rights Code states that: “Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.”
16At a fundamental level, the obligation to accommodate an individual’s protected ground under s. 1 of the Human Rights Code may sometimes require parties and the Tribunal to accept that common hearing practices will not be appropriate.
17In reviewing the evidence, the appellant has not raised a basis for an accommodation, pursuant to the Human Rights Code1. Rather, the appellant’s Accommodation Request is at odds with the Human Rights Code.
18The appellant cannot direct the Tribunal as to who sits as an adjudicator nor the adjudicators sex.
19I am satisfied that the adjudicator assigned by the Tribunal, regardless of sex, will not interfere with either party’s ability to effectively put forward a fulsome case and will ensure procedural fairness at the hearing.
ORDER
20The appellant’s motion is dismissed.
21The Tribunal reviewed the submissions of the respondent made on August 12, 2022, in response to the appellants motion and this is the order that stands as the Tribunals formal decision on the appellant’s request.
22The April 12, 2022, email from the Tribunal is of no force and effect.
23Except for the provisions contained in this order, all previous orders made by the Tribunal remain in full force and effect.
Released: September 1, 2022
_____________________________
Monica Ciriello
Vice Chair