Reid v. Ontario March of Dimes, 2009 HRTO 1280

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Reid

Applicant

-and-

Rehabilitation Foundation for the Disabled o/a Ontario March of Dimes, VON Canada (Middlesex, Elgin), Government of Canada, Brian Dunbar, Carol Knowles, Lyn Leclair, Nancy Leslie and Connie Milliken

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: September 8, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1280

Indexed as: Reid v. Ontario March of Dimes

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. It alleges discrimination while the applicant was participating in a vocational rehabilitation program provided by the respondent Ontario March of Dimes (“OMOD”), in an unpaid work placement through the respondent Victorian Order of Nurses (“VON”). It appears that the applicant was referred to this program by the Canada Pension Plan Disability Vocational Rehabilitation Program (“CPPD VRP”), operated by the respondent Government of Canada. The individual respondents are employees of the organization respondents. The names of the organization respondents are corrected as set out in the style of cause.

2Following a previous Interim Decision dealing with a Tribunal-initiated Notice of Intent to Dismiss (2009 HRTO 747), the respondents have filed Responses. The Responses are delivered to the parties with this Interim Decision, and the Tribunal finds it appropriate to make the following directions for further submissions regarding various issues that arise as a result of them.

Government of Canada

3The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over those matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal jurisdiction. The Code does not, in general, apply to the Government of Canada and allegations that it violated statutory human rights are made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It appears that the alleged violations of the Code by the Government of Canada and Carol Knowles, an employee of CPPD, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

4Therefore, the applicant is directed to include with his Reply submissions with regard to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the allegations against these respondents. Following receipt of the Reply, or if the applicant does not file a Reply, the Application against the Government of Canada and Carol Knowles may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based upon the written submissions. The respondents need not make any submissions on this issue unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

OTHER RESPONDENTS

5The respondents other than the Government of Canada have filed Requests for Order. First, they ask that the Application be dismissed on the basis that it was filed more than one year after the incident to which it relates, and that the conditions of s. 34(2) have not been met. Section 34 (2) requires that for the Tribunal to accept an Application more than one year after the final event, it must be satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. They correctly note that the Tribunal’s previous Interim Decision did not determine as a final matter whether the Application would be dismissed as a result of s. 34. Second, they ask that if the Application is not dismissed, the individually named respondents be removed as respondents.

6I agree with the respondents that these Requests are appropriately dealt with as preliminary matters. In all the circumstances, I find that a conference call with the parties is the most appropriate manner of hearing submissions. The Registrar will contact the parties regarding the scheduling of the call.

7The applicant shall be prepared to make submissions first during the call and to respond to the submissions of the respondents on the issues of delay and removal of the personal respondents made in their Requests for Order During Proceedings.

8The Tribunal draws the applicant’s attention to the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office. The Guide, at pages 2 – 3, provides a list of resources available to applicants appearing before the Tribunal.

9I am not seized.