G.A. v. York Region District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1269

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

G.A. by his next friend O.A.

Applicant

-and-

York Region District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: August 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1269

Indexed as: G.A. v. York Region District School Board

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the "Code").

2A hearing was held on August 15, 2009, regarding various preliminary issues, including the applicant's Request to Expedite and the respondent's Request to remove individual respondents. At the hearing, I made the following oral ruling:

The respondent York Region District School Board (the "Board") has made a request to remove the 22 individual respondents named in this matter, relying upon paras. 4-5 of Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31. The applicant opposes the Request, citing a concern that if discrimination is found, the Tribunal should implement effective systemic remedies that effect change within the Board.

Without commenting on what specific remedies the Tribunal might in fact order if discrimination is found in this case, I note that the Tribunal may make systemic remedies in any case. Section 45.2 (1) (3) of the Code provides that the Tribunal, where it finds discrimination, may make "An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act." Section 45.2 (2) reads:

(2) For greater certainty, an order under paragraph 3 of subsection (1),

(a) may direct a person to do anything with respect to future practices; and

(b) may be made even if no order under that paragraph was requested.

Systemic remedies that may lead to changes of various kinds within an organization do not require orders against individuals: see, for example, Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), 1987 CanLII 109 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114. Accordingly, the reasons given by the applicant for keeping the personal respondents do not lead to them remaining as respondents.

Applying the factor set out in para. 4 of Persaud, I find that the personal respondents should be removed. There is no issue of the Board's ability to remedy any human rights violations found, both financially and through organizational changes if ordered by the Tribunal. As the allegations relate to a series of events that involved various individuals, there is no compelling reason to continue the proceeding as against any particular ones as a result of the nature of the allegations against them. In my view, leaving these individuals as respondents has the potential to prolong and make the hearing process more complicated. Therefore, I cannot see prejudice that would be caused by removing these individuals as respondents.

Accordingly, I order that Bill Hogarth, Debra Kennedy, Greg Haines, Rick Cunningham, Sharon List, Denese Belchez, Ritchie McNoughton, Lillian Lahe, Cathy Houghes, Kelly Boyco, Rebecca Vincent, Bruce Craig, Kim McKinnen, James Siredevan, Louise Moreau, Eva Biederman, Miriam Piafsky, Anne Gnoinski, Frank Moralis, Maria Santos, Robert Dunn and Esther Cuickerman be removed as respondents and the style of cause be amended accordingly.

3I also make the following orders on consent of the parties:

(1) The applicant's request to expedite is withdrawn.

(2) The respondent's request to defer is withdrawn.

(3) The deadline for the respondent's Response is extended to October 8, 2009. The Response shall be delivered to the applicant by the respondent.

(4) The deadline for the applicant's Reply is extended to November 9, 2009.

4I am not seized of this matter.