2 total
Tribunal removes personal respondent and administrative agency from human rights application; defers decision on independent reviewer.
In an interim decision regarding an application alleging discrimination in services related to autism treatment, the Tribunal considered whether certain respondents should be removed.
The Tribunal removed a personal respondent employee on consent after the employer assumed liability.
The Tribunal also removed Contact Niagara, finding it merely administered the independent review mechanism and had no control over the allegedly discriminatory data.
The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether the independent reviewer, Dr. Mason, should be removed pending further submissions.
Tribunal refuses to dismiss human rights application under s. 45.1, finding clinical review mechanism did not address discrimination.
The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged discrimination regarding his discharge from IBI therapy provided by Kinark.
Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, finding no reasonable prospect of success for holding the funder vicariously liable.
The Tribunal ruled that historical treatment allegations were untimely for remedial purposes but could be introduced as context.
The Tribunal also held that the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) process, which upheld the clinical discharge decision, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, as it was a clinical review rather than a legal one.
The applicant was directed to clarify the specific allegations against the IRM reviewer and coordinator.
