Barton v. John Howard Society of Toronto, 2009 HRTO 1659

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Craig Barton

Applicant

-and-

The John Howard Society of Toronto, Greg Rogers and David Raponi-Monk

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: October 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1659

Indexed as: Barton v. John Howard Society of Toronto

1This is an Application filed on April 15, 2009, 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 discrimination in the provision of services, on the grounds of race, disability, as well as reprisal. The applicant states that he was “barred” from the John Howard Society (the “Society”) two times in six and half months. He does not state what events amount to a reprisal under the Code. In providing his answer on the Application form requiring him to explain why he believes he was discriminated against, he states “because these 3 representatives are white”.

3Although the respondents take issue with the lack of detail in the Application, they have provided a Response which sets out a thorough narrative of the recent history of their dealings with the applicant. They describe the circumstances under which the Society took the decision to suspend service to the applicant for specific periods of time. The Society states that it is fully prepared to continue working with the applicant following his release from a recent period of incarceration, provided that he abides by the rules that have previously been laid out for him, including treating the Society’s staff members with courtesy and respect.

4The respondents submit that the applicant has failed to draw any connection or link or nexus whatsoever between a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code and his dealings with the respondents. The respondents request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on a summary basis.

5The respondents also request that the individual respondents be removed as parties to the Application, as they were at all times acting within the scope of their duties and responsibilities as employees of the Society.

6The 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.

7The applicant is also required to provide submissions on the issue of whether the individual respondents should, in any event, be removed as parties 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.

8The 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 27, 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 November 13, 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.

9I am not seized of this matter.