Barton v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1570

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Craig Barton Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Victoria Peace Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: September 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1570 Indexed as: Barton v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

1This is an Application filed on August 22, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicant alleges that he was denied a start-up housing benefit by an employee of the Ontario Disability Support Program ("ODSP") because of his race, which he describes as "mulatto Jamaican and British". In explaining why he believes he was discriminated against, the applicant writes "because she is white" and, in another part of the Application, "because they think they can harass black people". The applicant also states that "these white women constantly abuse deny me …services".

3The respondents have filed a Response to the Application, in which they provide a detailed narrative of the applicant's interaction with a local office of the ODSP. They explain that the applicant made a request for a Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit ("CSUMB"). They explain the circumstances under which the applicant was asked to provide information in support of his request for the CSUMB, and the basis of the decision that he was not eligible. The Response states that the applicant appealed the decision to the Social Benefits Tribunal, and that the appeal was denied as the applicant did not attend the hearing. The respondents submit that it is unclear from the Application how the respondents' actions constitute discrimination based on race.

4The respondents also request that the individual respondent be removed as a party to the Application, as she was at all times acting in her role as an employee of the Ministry and, further, the Application does not contain any allegations of discrimination against this individual.

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 respondents have violated the Code. The applicant is directed to state, in his submissions, whether he agrees or disagrees with the events as described in the Response. If he disagrees with some of the facts asserted by the respondents, the applicant is directed to set out his version of those facts.

6The applicant is also required to provide submissions on the issue of whether the individual respondent should, in any event, be removed as a party to the Application. The Tribunal has stated that the "unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged" and has, in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, at para. 5 set out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be applied when there is a request to remove an individual as a respondent. The Tribunal refers the applicant to those factors, and other Tribunal cases on the issue, in preparing his submissions.

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 provide his submissions orally, 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.