Arzem v. R (Ontario), 2005 HRTO 42

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

[Indexed as: Arzem v. R (Ontario)]

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Arzem, et al “Group A”

-and-

Aslanboga, et al “Group B”

-and-

Brooke, et al “Group C”

-and-

Ciccone, et al “Group D”

-and-

Athanasopoulos, et al “Group E”

-and-

Burrows, et al “Group F”

-and-

Cariou, et al, “Group G”

-and-

Martin “Group H”

Complainants

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

(as represented by Minister of Community and Social Services, Minister of Health and Long Term Care and Minister of Children and Youth Services)

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Patricia E. DeGuire

Date: October 17^th, 2005

HR-0844-04 and HR-0845-04 (Group C); HR-0870-04 to HR-0882-04 (Group D); HR-0921 to HR-0931-05 (Group E); HR-541-03; HR-0567-03 (Group F); HR-0966-05 to HR-0974-05 (Group G); and HR-0987-05 (Group H)

Citation: 2005 HRTO 42

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

400 University Avenue, 7^th Floor

Toronto ON M7A 1T7

Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946

TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168

E-mail hrto.registrar@jus.gov.on.ca

Website www.hrto.ca

INTRODUCTION

1At the onset of these proceedings, Ontario, the Respondent, took the position that it is not the proper respondent to claims concerning the failure to accommodate autistic children in the schools. Ontario brought a motion, which the Tribunal heard between November and December 2004, requesting a stay of these proceedings until the Commission had decided whether to refer to the Tribunal the complaints against the school boards.

2In its interim Decision issued January 5, 2005, (unreported), in refusing to grant the stay, the Tribunal states: “the Tribunal believes that the Code provides a more efficient way to deal with this issue than a stay. If it wishes, the Respondent can bring a motion to add the school boards.” Further, in its Reasons in Arzem v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) (No. 1) (2005), C.H.R.R. Doc. 05-180, 2005 HRTO 11, at para. 107 and 109, the Tribunal ruled that even though the Commission had taken the decision to not refer the complaints against the school boards, that decision neither ousts Ontario’s ability to bring a motion to add them, nor ousts the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to bring its own motion to add the school boards to these proceedings.

3Ontario has not brought a motion to add the school boards. The Tribunal was concerned that if Ontario still wished to bring such a motion, the pending Constitutional Question slated for October 2005, and the hearing on the merits slated to begin November 2005, might be interrupted. In addition, the Tribunal had concerns that not all persons who might be affected by the outcome of these proceedings were given notice. To that end, the Tribunal convened a telephonic Pre-Hearing Conference (“PHC”) on August 23, 2005, at 08:30 A.M., with counsel and agents of the parties in the Arzem matters.

4At that proceeding, the Tribunal noted that the remedies sought by the Commission and the Complainants may implicate or affect the school boards and the bargaining agents. The Tribunal did emphasise that if Ontario wished to bring a motion to add the school boards and the bargaining agents, it had to act immediately because we were running out of time.

5Lead counsel for Ontario informed the Tribunal he was still awaiting instructions from their principal about whether to bring a motion to add the prospective respondents.

6The Tribunal was of the view that, at the very least, those affected parties might have to be given notice.

7The Tribunal noted that it has jurisdiction to make an order against a person, but only if that person is a party to the specific proceeding: (subsection 41(1)).

8In contemplation of bringing its own motion to add the school boards as a party according to its jurisdiction under subsection 39(3) of the Code, the Tribunal directed the parties to make written submissions on the following: (i) whether notice ought to be given to the school boards and the bargaining agents; (ii) to what extent should they participate; and (iii) in the light of Rules 35 and 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, (July 2004), who is the most appropriate person to give notice to those entities?

9The Commission’s counsel informed the Tribunal that the Commission was in the process of reconsidering its decision about referring the complaints against the school boards. Therefore, the Commission might not take a position on the foregoing three questions. Nonetheless, the Tribunal directed all the parties, including the Commission, to file and serve their submissions by September 9, 2005.

ISSUES

10In this motion, the Tribunal considers the following issues:

(i) whether notice ought to be given to the school boards and the bargaining agents;

(ii) to what extent should the school boards and bargaining agent participate; and

(iii) in the light of Rules 35 and 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, (July 2004), who is the most appropriate person to give notice to those entities.

DECISION

11The Tribunal concludes that notice ought to be given to the school boards and the proper bargaining agents forthwith. The Tribunal directs the Commission’s and the Complainants’ counsel together to provide such notice. Further, the Tribunal directs all the parties, where necessary, to provide the school boards and the bargaining agents with a copy of their pleadings and any disclosure provided to date.

THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS

(i) Should Notice be given to the School Boards and the Bargaining Agents?

12The Tribunal received written submissions from the Commission; Ms. Venhola, counsel for numerous Complainants; Mr. William P. Dermody, counsel for Master Dylan Van Louwe; Ms. Samantha Crarey’s next friend Elli Crarey; Master Lucas Burrows’s next friend Ms. Norrah Whitney; and Ontario. (Both “friends” declared that they had made submissions without the benefit of legal counsel and without full appreciation of their submissions).

13The Commission submits that it “does not object to the Tribunal giving notice to any party who may be affected by a decision” in these proceedings. Specifically, the Commission says giving “notice to the school boards in Ontario where the [Complainants] have been in attendance or entitled to attend” would be proper. Furthermore, the Commission submits, since the Tribunal’s decision could have an effect on “other school boards”, notice should be given to the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association.

14With respect to notice to affected bargaining agents, the Commission submits that only the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), whose members include education assistants, may be affected by any order the Tribunal may issue.

15Mr. Dermody and Ms. Venhola adopt the Commission ’s submissions.

16In addition, Ms. Venhola submits that many of the complaints against the Minister of Education—before the Tribunal—and individual school boards—before the Commission—allege discrimination in relation to the general polices and practices of the school boards and their application to pupils with autism. Therefore, those issues are not tied exclusively to the failure of the Respondent to provide ABA/IBI services.

17Ms. Crarey, for Miss Samantha Crarey, submits that the school boards and the bargaining agents should be notified about the hearing. She submits that she “cannot give an opinion on whether the school boards and unions should be added as separate entities and respectfully relied on the Tribunal” to make such a determination.

18Ms. Whitney, on behalf of Master Burrows, submits that “the parties should be notified of a hearing such that it may result in them being named and or joined in a case before” the Tribunal.

19Ontario submits that numerous, if not all, Complainants have named the school boards in separate Complaints in the same subject matter as the case before this Tribunal. Specifically, in the March 2004 Initial Pre-Hearing Conference in Arzem, et al (Group A), several of the “next friends’” submissions had described in detail the problems they had experienced in obtaining preferred special educational programming or other services from their school boards. After the Auton v. B.C. decision was issued, the Commission and the Complainants had emphasised in their submissions to the Tribunal that their claims were about access to education in the public school system, not health care. Ontario submits that it has no reason to believe that the Complainants have abandoned the efforts, in the present proceedings, to raise issues concerning accommodation of their disabilities in the context of the public school system.

20Ontario submits that likely, the Commission and the Complainants will ask the Tribunal to make findings on: (a) the adequacy the school boards’ (teachers and educational assistants) accommodations provided to the individual complainants; (b) the adequacy or efficiency of the educational placements the school boards offered to the Complainants; (c) the availability of the preferred placement or services for the Complainants in each school setting; and (d) whether, in relation to the Complainants, the acts, omissions or policies of the district school boards and their employees were discriminatory.

21Moreover, Ontario submits that because of the structure Ontario’s public school system and the confidentiality provisions—specifically subsection 266(2)—of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, as amended, the Ministry of Education is not in a position to gain access to information about an individual Complainant’s interaction with his or her respective district or separate school board, teacher and educational assistant. That information is exclusive to the school boards. Besides, Ontario submits, it does not represent nor act for any of the school boards; they are separate legal entities under the Education Act.

Analysis

22The Tribunal has jurisdiction to add only a respondent party to proceedings before it. Clause 39(2)(d) of the Code stipulates that the parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal may include any person appearing to the Tribunal to have infringed the right. To that end, subsection 39(3) confers power on the Tribunal to add a party within the purview of clause 39(2)(d) at any stage of the proceeding on conditions the Tribunal deems proper.

23In addition to its statutory jurisdiction to add a respondent party, the Tribunal is restricted to making an order only against a respondent party to the proceedings, who it has determined—after a hearing—has infringed a right of the complainant: clause 41(1)(a) of the Code. Nonetheless, by principles of convention of the adversarial system, the Tribunal is required to make findings against a non-party if the facts, established in evidence, dictate a conclusion, and are relevant to the decision; (Hurd v. Hewitt (1994), 1994 CanLII 874 (ON CA), 20 O.R. (3d) 639 (Ont. C.A.).

24Notably, by implication of Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (July 2004), the Tribunal may grant intervenor status to a person who might be affected by the outcome of its hearing.

25Boards of Inquiry and this Tribunal have dealt with the touchstones for adding a respondent party to its proceedings. It is clear that the threshold for adding a party is rather low because in exercising that discretion, the Tribunal does not determine whether the prospective respondent has committed any discriminatory act. It is not a conclusion or a finding of liability on the merits of the complaint. (See O’Sullivan v. Amcon Management Ltd. (1993), C.H.R.R. D/417; (Brown v. DMO Industries (1993), 1993 CanLII 16456 (ON HRT), 20 C.H.R.R. D/167; Anonuevo v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (No.1) (1996), 36 C.H.R.R. D/238; Payne v. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. (No.2) (2001), 2001 CanLII 26231 (ON HRT), 41 C.H.R.R. D/52; and August v. Hetherington (No. 1) (2003), C.H.R.R Doc. 03-255, 2003 HRTO 24.

Test for Adding a Party

26In determining whether to add a prospective respondent party to a proceeding, the Tribunal must consider, among other things: (i) whether on the face of the record, there are any factual underpinnings that establish a nexus between the complainant’s allegation and the party it seeks to add, and whether the allegations, if believed, may lead to a finding, which affects the prospective party directly or indirectly to the extent that the Tribunal’s order can be foiled without more, if the party does not comply; and (ii) whether by adding a party, give rise to any prejudicial impact on that party, and the degree of the impact.

Factual Underpinnings

27The Tribunal is satisfied that on the face of the pleadings, the school boards appear to have infringed the right of the Complainants. There is not enough, however, on the face of the record for the Tribunal to conclude that the bargaining agents appear to have infringed the right of the Complainants.

28The Commission and the Complainants plead that autistic children have difficulty in obtaining preferred special educational programmes or other services from their school boards. Ms. Venhola submits that many of the complaints against the Minister of Education—before the Tribunal—and individual school boards—before the Commission—allege discrimination in relation to the general polices and practices of the school boards and their application to pupils with autism.

29The school boards, teachers and educational assistants, in concert, have a duty to implement special education programmes and services for exceptional pupils. The Tribunal may find that the Complainants’ allegations of discrimination with respect to the general policies and practices of the school boards and their application to pupils with autism are true. Thus, technically, those actors may be held liable for infringing the Complainants’ rights.

30Significantly, though, only the school boards would be liable: the school boards are the employers, and the teachers and educational assistants are the employees. That is so because the Code “contemplates the imposition of liability on employers for all acts of their employees ‘in the course of employment’”. That is consistent with the purpose of the Code to place “responsibility for an organization on those who control it and are in a position to take effective remedial action to remove” discriminatory practices. (Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board), 1987 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84, at para. 17).

31However, the bargaining agents become involved because they represent the teachers and educational assistants, who carry out certain operational aspects of the school boards’ functions.

32The Tribunal takes judicial notice that bargaining agents enter into collective agreements with school boards on behalf of teachers and educational assistants.

33Furthermore, as Ontario submits, the Tribunal may order remedies that the school boards will need to implement. In such eventuality, in the light of the functional and operational structure of the delivery of educational programmes and services, most likely, the order will have to be accommodated in the collective agreement between the school boards and the bargaining agents.

34In addition to fairness, it may be impractical and counterintuitive not to give notice to the school boards and the bargaining agents in the event that the Tribunal may order a remedy, which requires implementation in the schools, to address past and future discriminatory practices.

35The Tribunal’s inference concerning the joint responsibility of the actors,(the school boards, the teachers and the educational assistants), is drawn from specific sections of the Education Act.

36According to the Education Act, the Minister has full responsibility for the Ministry. The Minister executes his or her functions by delegation. Subsection 8(3) of the Education Act states:

The Minister shall ensure that all exceptional children in Ontario have available to them, in accordance with this Act and the regulations, appropriate special education programs and special education services without payment of fees by parents or guardians resident in Ontario, and shall provide for the parents or guardians to appeal the appropriateness of the special education placement, and for these purposes the Minister shall,

(a) require school boards to implement procedures for early and ongoing identification of the learning abilities and needs of pupils, and shall prescribe standards in accordance with which such procedures be implemented; and

(b) in respect of special education programs and services, define exceptionalities of pupils, and prescribe classes, groups or categories of exceptional pupils, and require boards to employ such definitions or use such prescriptions as established under this clause. [Emphasis added]

37The Education Act defines the phrases “exceptional pupils”, and “special education programs and services”:

“exceptional pupil” means a pupil whose behavioural, communicational, intellectual, physical or multiple exceptionalities are such that he or she is considered to need placement in a special education program by a committee, established under subparagraph iii of paragraph 5 of subsection 11 (1), of the board,

(a) of which the pupil is a resident pupil,

(b) that admits or enrols the pupil other than pursuant to an agreement with another board for the provision of education, or

(c) to which the cost of education in respect of the pupil is payable by the Minister;

“special education program” means, in respect of an exceptional pupil, an educational program that is based on and modified by the results of continuous assessment and evaluation and that includes a plan containing specific objectives and an outline of educational services that meets the needs of the exceptional pupil;

“special education services” means facilities and resources, including support personnel and equipment, necessary for developing and implementing a special education program;

38Subsection 11(1)(5) confers power on the Minister to make regulations concerning schools or classes established under the Education Act and any of its predecessors, and concerning all other schools supported entirely or partially by public money:

governing the provision, establishment, organization and administration of,

i. special education programs,

ii. special education services, and

iii. committees to identify exceptional pupils and to make and review placements of exceptional pupils

39By the Education Act, the Education Act-O. Reg. 181/98 and Policy/Program Memorandum No. 81, the Minister has delegated to school boards the responsibilities to provide special education programmes and services for exceptional pupils. Furthermore, every school board is under a statutory obligation to arrange with another school board to provide such services for its exceptional pupils: subsection 170(1)(7) of the Education Act.

40The next aspect of the test the Tribunal must address is whether adding the school boards will result in prejudice to them.

Prejudice

41In deciding whether to add the school boards and the bargaining agents to these proceedings, the Tribunal must adhere to the principles of natural justice and fairness. Specifically, those principles require, among others, that the Tribunal should not add a party if by doing so the party will suffer real or substantial prejudice that is not curable. In addition, it requires, where appropriate, that prior notice be given to those entitled to participate in proceedings before the Tribunal takes a decision or makes an order against the person. (See Brown and Evans, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (Canvasback Publishing: Toronto, 1998) at p. 9-1 citing S. A. de Smith, Lord Wolfe and J. Jowell, Judicial Review of Administrative Action 5^th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1995) at 432.

42The Tribunal is of the view that any prejudice—real or substantive—that has been caused to the school boards is curable. However, the Tribunal is open to submissions from the school boards on this issue.

43Indeed the parties have exchanged pleadings—general and special—and the exercise of disclosure is under way. There have been several proceedings before the Tribunal; the essence of those proceedings have been recorded in the Tribunal’s decisions and communications to the parties. They are available to the school boards and the bargaining agents. The parties are now ready to engage in a Constitutional Question, which begins on October 18, 2005. The hearing on the merits is scheduled to begin on November 21, 2005.

44The Tribunal will make specific directions below under the heading “Order” to minimise any prejudice that might have been cause to the school boards and the bargaining agents.

(ii) To What Extent the School Boards and Bargaining Agents should participate?

45Only Ontario made submission on this question.

46Ontario submits that the school boards and the bargaining agents ought to be given full party status in the proceedings. That includes the entitlement to file and serve pleadings, to receive disclosure from the parties, to call evidence, to cross-examine witnesses and to make submission on liability and remedy.

47The Tribunal agrees that if the school boards are added as a party they should be given full participatory rights as Ontario states. Quite apart from fairness and their right to try to clear themselves of any liability, their participation may be quite edifying in enabling the Tribunal and the parties to tailor practical remedies and implementation strategies, if so ordered. The Tribunal is mindful that extending such status to them may extend the hearing.

48The Tribunal will decide whether they should participate as parties in these proceedings. Thus, to help it decide, the Tribunal requests that the school boards make written submissions they want it to consider about whether they should be added as parties to the hearing on the merits.

49Submissions must be filed with the Tribunal and served on all the parties no later than October 28, 2005.

50Regarding the bargaining agents, likely they may be affected by the outcome of the hearing on the merits. The Tribunal will decide whether they should participate in these proceedings, and to what extent they may do so. Thus, the Tribunal asks the bargaining agents to make written submissions they want the Tribunal to consider about their desire to intervene or not, and to what extent.

51Submissions must be filed with the Tribunal and served on all the parties no later than October 28, 2005.

52If the parties wish to respond to those submissions, they must file and serve their responses, no later than Monday, November 14, 2005.

53If the school boards and the bargaining agents fail to respond by October 28, 2005, they will not be entitled to any further Notice with respect to the hearing. Further, the Tribunal will proceed to hold the hearing on the merits in their absence.

(iii) Who Should Give Notice?

54The Commission, and adopted by the Complainants, except the “next friends” of the Complainants Crarey and Burrows, say the Tribunal ought to give notice to the school boards and the bargaining agents.

55Ontario says the manner of doing so is within the Tribunal’s discretion. However, it hastens to point out that the Complainants and their counsel, not the Respondent, have knowledge of which particular school board are involved. The Tribunal agrees.

56In considering who is the appropriate entity to give notice, the Tribunal has considered the pragmatic and functional aspect of doing so, the extraordinary nature of these matters, and the ability of each entity, including the Tribunal.

57It is appropriate in this case to direct a party or parties to give notice to the school boards and the bargaining agent: Rule 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (July 2004). The Tribunal does not have the resources required to undertake this exercise.

58Having done the investigation, and conducted interviews with the Complainants, the Tribunal is convinced that the Commission, and the Complainants’ counsel, Ms. Venhola—who represents the bulk of the Complainants—are in the best position to identify the school boards and the appropriate bargaining agents and to give them timely notice. This factor is particularly necessary because notice must be given forthwith.

59The Tribunal appreciates this is a difficult task for both counsel, and expresses sincere thanks to Ms. Ffolkes-Abraham and Ms. Venhola, who, as well as the other counsel in these matters, are always ready and willing to assist the Tribunal in moving these matters forward.

ORDER

60The Tribunal gives the following directions:

1. The Commission and the Complainant counsel shall dispatch the Notice to the relevant school boards and bargaining agents forthwith, no later than 72 (seventy-two) hours of the date of this Decision.

2. This Decision shall be sent to the school boards and the bargaining agents with the Notice.

3. The parties shall dispatch forthwith—no later than seventy-two (72) hours after the date of this Decision—to the school boards and the bargaining agents copies of their pleadings and where appropriate the disclosure that has been provided to date. If and where practical, this may be done electronically.

Dated at Toronto, this 17^th day of October, 2005.

“Signed by”____________________________

Patricia E. DeGuire

Vice Chair

APPENDIX A

List of Complainants’ Counsel and Agents

HR-0602-04 to HR-0722-04 Arzem et al. v. R. (Ontario) (Group A)

HR-0747-04 to HR-0825-04 Aslanboga et al. v. R. (Ontario) (Group B)

HR-0844-04 AND HR-0845-04 Brooke/Allan v. R. (Ontario) (Group C)

HR-0870-04 to HR-0882-04 Ciccone et al. v. R. (Ontario) (Group D)

HR-0921-05 to HR-0931-05 Athanasopoulos et al. v. R. (Ontario) (Group E)

HR-0541-03 AND HR-0567-03 Burrows et al. v. R. (Ontario) (Group F)

HR-0966-05 to HR-0974-05 Cariou, et al v. R. (Ontario) Group G)

HR-0987-05 Martin v. R. (Ontario) (Group H)

Complainants “Group A”

ARZEM, Andrew by his next friends Sheri and Gary Arzem † represented by Ellie Venhola

BARGER, Brendan by his next friend Thomas Berger † represented by Ellie Venhola

BRADY, Adam by his next friend Susan Brady † represented by Ellie Venhola

BROOKHOUSER, Jordan by his next friend Lucy Brookhouser † represented by Ellie Venhola

CANDIDO, Jared by his next friend Marti Candido † represented by Ellie Venhola

CIUMMELLI, Lucas by his next friend Lucas Ciummelli † represented by Ellie Venhola

COLACICCO, Nicholas by his next friend Susan Colacicco † represented by Ellie Venhola

COLLINS, Benjamin by his next friend Lise Collins † represented by Ellie Venhola

CRISTINI, Anthony by his next friend Paul Cristini *** on own behalf

CROWDER, Ben by his next friend Kimberley Crowder † represented by Ellie Venhola

DELAHUNTY, Kyle by his next friends Terry and Maltie Delahunty † represented by Ellie Venhola D'ULISSE, Christian by his next friend Giancarlo D’Ulisse† represented by Ellie Venhola

FIALA, Thomas by his next friend Yvette Fiala † represented by Ellie Venhola

FRENCH, Tyler by his next friends Terry and Elisa French † represented by Ellie Venhola

FRYER, Evan by his next friend Timothy Edwin Fryer † represented by Ellie Venhola

GALATI, Michael by his next friend Teresa Galati † represented by Ellie Venhola

GIVELAS, Michael by his next friend Angela Givelas † represented by Ellie Venhola

GOEBEL, Connor by his next friend Gavin Goebel † represented by Ellie Venhola

GUBERNAT, Rick † represented by Ellie Venhola

GUBERNAT-VOLINZ, Elise by her next friend Rick Gubernat † represented by Ellie Venhola

HUNT, Riley Andrew by his next friend Juliana Hunt † represented by Ellie Venhola

IACONO, Liam by his next friend Gaetano Iacono † represented by Ellie Venhola

JOHNSTON, Payton by his next friend Sandi Johnston † represented by Ellie Venhola

KRUMINS, Kieran by his next friend Jennifer Krumins † represented by Ellie Venhola

KUHLMANN, Grant by his next friend Laura Kuhlmann † represented by Ellie Venhola

LI, Nathan by his next friend Chris Li † represented by Ellie Venhola

MADDOCK, Chad by his next friend Tracy Maddock † represented by Ellie Venhola

MAJOOR, Quenten by his next friend Barry Majoor † represented by Ellie Venhola

MEDD, Luke by his next friend Wendy Arnott-Medd † represented by Ellie Venhola

MEIN, David by his next friend John Mein † represented by Ellie Venhola

MELAMED, Jay by his next friend Andrea Bellman † represented by Ellie Venhola

MICELI, Giacinto by his next friend Rita Miceli † represented by Ellie Venhola

MOORE, Curtis by his next friend Joanne Moore † represented by Ellie Venhola

MOORE-JEHA, Joseph by his next friend Christine Jeha † represented by Ellie Venhola

MORRISON, Sean by his next friends Nancy and Philip Morrison † represented by Ellie Venhola

MURACA, Robert by his next friend Flavia Muraca † represented by Ellie Venhola

MYERS, Daniel by his next friend Leah Myers † represented by Ellie Venhola

NOLAN, John Eric by his next friend Beth Nolan † represented by Ellie Venhola

PANOKOS, Sara by his next friend Julie Panakos † represented by Ellie Venhola

QUANSAH, Cameron by his next friend Damian Quansah † represented by Ellie Venhola

ROY, Adam by his next friend Ellen Farrington † represented by Ellie Venhola

RUPAKUMAR, Krishan by his next friends Juliet and Rock Rupakumar†represented by Ellie Venhola

SCHMALZ, Jacob by his next friend Michael Schmalz † represented by Ellie Venhola

SEGAL Eric by his next friend Sharon Gabison ** on own behalf

SISTI, Nicholas by his next friend Joanne Sisti † represented by Ellie Venhola

STEFFEN, Benjamin by his next friend Darla Steffen † represented by Ellie Venhola

THIELE, Robert by his next friend Nelly Thiele † represented by Ellie Venhola

UTHAYAN, Nakulan Vishal by his next friend Usha M. Uthayan † represented by Ellie Venhola

UTHAYAN, Sahadaevan Vittal by his next friend Usha M. Uthayan † represented by Ellie Venhola

VELIKONJA, Ernest by his next friend Sandra Velikonja † represented by Ellie Venhola

Vijayarajah, Jonathan by his next friend Joseph Vijayaraj † represented by Ellie Venhola

VOGELS, Jacob by his next friend Ms. Cindy Vogels **** represented by Karen Canatta

WAGMAN, David by his next friend Lillian Wagman † represented by Ellie Venhola

WAGMAN, Michael by his next friend Lillian Wagman † represented by Ellie Venhola

WALSH, Cameron by his next friend Ms. Sheri-Lee Walsh † represented by Ellie Venhola

WEE, Jan-Eric by his next friend Ms. Tessie Wee † represented by Ellie Venhola

WEICHEL, Kieran by his next friend Sandra Weichel † represented by Ellie Venhola

ZUCCARO, Michael by his next friend Lina Zuccaro † represented by Ellie Venhola

Complainants “Group B”

Aslanboga, Burak by his next friend Ms. Nazile Baydir † represented by Ellie Venhola

BRIDE, Emily Sara Elizabeth by her next friend Mr. Peter Bride † represented by Ellie Venhola

BORGSTADT, Cameron by his next friend Carolyn Borgstadt * represented by Ellie Venhola

CARDONA, Jonathan by his next friend Ms. Laura Cardona † represented by Ellie Venhola

CESARIO, Andrew by his next friend Mrs. Patricia Cesario † represented by Ellie Venhola

CRAREY, Samantha by her next friend Elli Crarey ** on own behalf

CURRIE, Joshua by his next friend Mrs. Donna Currie † represented by Ellie Venhola

DEWIT, Nicholas by his next friend Michael DeWit † represented by Ellie Venhola

FRANKLIN, Calvin by his next friend Alex Franklin *** on own behalf

GELLER-CUMMINGS, Adam by his next friend Gail Geller ** on own behalf

HEWITT, Jonathan by his next friend Mrs. Deborah Campbell * represented by Ellie Venhola

MARKAKIS, Jon by his next friend Ms. Constantina Arvanitis † represented by Ellie Venhola

MICANOVIC, Ana by her next friend Mladen Micanovic † represented by Ellie Venhola

MILLAR, Brandonby his next friend Victoria Millar † represented by Ellie Venhola

MOGYORODI, Samuel by his next friend Gary Mogyorodi † represented by Ellie Venhola

NIKOLIC, Eric Benjamin and James by their next friend Mark Nikolic † represented by Ellie Venhola

ROBINSON, Brandon by his next friend Karen Robinson † represented by Ellie Venhola

SCANDRETT, Shawn by his next friend Cindy Scandrett * represented by Ellie Venhola

SCANTAMBURLO, Luigi by his next friend Vesna Scantamburlo † represented by Ellie Venhola

SHONUCK, John by his next friend Laurene Shonuck * represented by Ellie Venhola

SNELL, Laura by her next friend Mary Snell *** on own behalf

TESFAY, Robel by his next friend Tsigeweyin Tesfay † represented by Ellie Venhola

THOMASON, Tyler by his next friend Martin Thomason * represented by Ellie Venhola

TOBIN, Jeffrey by his next friends Barbara and Brian Tobin † represented by Ellie Venhola

TURNER, Kathleen, Scott and Stephen by their next friend Mary Turner † represented by Ellie Venhola

VAUSE, Justin by his next friend Linda Vause † represented by Ellie Venhola

WALSH, Matthew and Michael by their next friend Anita Walsh † represented by Ellie Venhola

Complainants “Group C”

ALLAN, Mackenzie by his litigation guardian Brad Allan † represented by Ellie Venhola

BROOKE, Daniel by his litigation guardian Sylvia Brooke † represented by Ellie Venhola

Complainants “Group D”

CICCONE, Michael by his litigation guardian Ms. Tina Ciccone *** on own behalf

DOWSETT, Aidan by his litigation guardian Jennifer Dowsett † represented by Ellie Venhola

EVRENIADIS, Jonathan Alexander by his litigation guardian Dina Vardouniotis *** on own behalf

FRICK, Thomas by his litigation guardian Mrs. Rose Frick *** on own behalf

GALATI, David by his next friend Teresa Galati † represented by Ellie Venhola

McLEOD, Connor by his litigation guardian Brenda Bogardis † represented by Ellie Venhola

WU, Adonia by her litigation guardian Yvonne Wu † represented by Ellie Venhola

Complainants “Group E”

Athanasopoulos, Spiridon by his litigation guardian Mrs. Voula Kant*** on own behalf

Boufford, Jordan by his litigation guardian Mr. Bradley Boufford*** on own behalf

Cruz, Linda and Sandra by their litigation guardian Mrs. Rosemary Cruz*** on own behalf

Millington, Aidan by his litigation guardian Ms. Janette Jones*** on own behalf

Nahmiache, Cody by his litigation guardian Ms. Jackie Martin*** on own behalf

Nesbitt, Thais Victoria by her litigation guardian Ms. Kiritea Nesbitt*** on own behalf

Shonuck, John by his next friend Laurene A. Shonuck*** on own behalf

Van Louwe, Dylan by his litigation guardian Mr. Nancy Van Louwe ***** represented by William P. Dermody

Complainant “Group F”

BURROWS, Luke by his next friend Norrah Whitney ** on own behalf

Complainant “Group G”

CARIOU, Matthew by his litigation guardian Ms. Kim Cariou*** on own behalf

DEWITT, Madison by her litigation guardian Mr. Michael DeWitt** on own behalf

HARABAJZA, Mark by his litigation guardian Ms. Carol Ivic*** on own behalf

THOMPSON, Matthew by his litigation guardian Ms. Manuela Beni*** on own behalf

MARAS, Mackenzie by her litigation guardian Mr. Tom Maras*** on own behalf

ZARETSKY, Daniel by his litigation guardian Ms. Mona Taylor*** on own behalf

Complainant “Group H”

MARTIN, Gordon by his litigation guardian Ms. Janet Martin*** on own behalf