Barton v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2009 HRTO 1566

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Craig Barton Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and John Wright Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: September 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1566 Indexed as: Barton v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1This is an Application filed on July 8, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application provides very little information about the actions of the respondents which are alleged to constitute discrimination under the Code. The applicant appears to allege that a refusal to provide services was racially motivated.

3The respondents have each filed Responses to the Application. The individual respondent, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Scarborough Hospital (the "Hospital"), has provided a detailed narrative of the interaction between the applicant and an employee of the Hospital's Justice and Mental Health Program. He has asked that the Application be dismissed as it does not reveal any facts or evidence to support at an allegation that there has been any discrimination on the basis of race, age, ethnic origin or any other enumerated ground under the Code. The individual respondent has also requested that the Application be dismissed on the basis that it appears to be aimed at harassing Hospital staff and is frivolous and vexatious.

4Although the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has filed a Response in Form 2, it does not provide a response to the allegations because it states that it is unable to, in the absence of any detailed particulars about the allegations against it. It states that the only two individuals referred to in the Application are not employed by it or are unknown to it.

5The Tribunal requires the applicant to provide submissions on the issue of whether the allegations in his Application, even if assumed to be true, provide a basis for a finding that the individual respondent has violated the Code. The applicant is directed to state, in his submissions, whether he agrees or disagrees with the events as described in the individual respondent's Response. If he disagrees with some of the facts asserted by the individual respondent, the applicant is directed to set out his version of those facts.

6With respect to the Ministry, the applicant is directed to state what actions or inactions by the Ministry are alleged to violate the Code. He is directed to state what happened, when and where it happened, who was involved, and why the Ministry is responsible. He must explain how his allegations against the Ministry raise issues of discrimination under the Code.

7The applicant may have the option of providing his submissions in writing, or orally. If the applicant wishes to provide his submissions orally, he must advise the Tribunal of this by October 12, 2009. If the applicant does not advise the Tribunal that he wishes to make oral submissions, the applicant's written submissions must be delivered to the respondents and filed with the Tribunal by October 28, 2009, following which the Tribunal may determine the issues without a further opportunity for oral submissions. The respondents are not required to file written responses pending further direction from the Tribunal.

8I am not seized of this matter.