Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
E.P. by her Next Friend Wendy Fournier Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Carleton Catholic School Board, Brenda Mulvihill, Dalia Naujokaitis, Brian Kelly, Nathalie Davidson, Julianne Shelton, Stephen Farrell, Susan Hanson, Nancy Beaulac, Christina Sutton, Kate Drummond, Kevin McCarthy, and Joanne McGrath Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: October 26, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1772 Indexed as: E.P. v. Ottawa Carleton District Catholic School Board
Background
1The applicant filed an Application on June 11, 2009 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The Application alleges reprisal and discrimination in goods, services or facilities because of disability and family status.
2The Application states that the date of the last event is September 17, 2008, but in her brief narrative describing what happened, the applicant does not identify what occurred on that date but instead describes events which are the subject of a complaint filed with the Commission on October 9, 2007, and which is now before the Tribunal as an Application brought under section 53(5) of the Code ("the s.53(5) Application"). A hearing is scheduled in respect of the s.53(5) Application.
3In the circumstances the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Notice states that it appears the Application is outside of its jurisdiction given that the subject-matter is substantially the same as the complaint that was filed with the Commission. The Notice invited the applicant to provide written submissions by August 20, 2009, but none have been received.
Decision
4Section 53(8) of the Code states:
53(8) No application, other than an application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.
5The applicant has named the Ottawa Catholic School Board as a respondent in both this Application and the s.53(5) Application, and described events which appear to be the same in each. The personal respondents are different in this Application, but the applicant has provided no information to explain how the allegations in this Application are not the same or substantially the same as those already before the Tribunal in the s.53(5) Application. Further, although the applicant states the last event covered by this Application occurred on September 17, 2008, she has provided no information identifying an event which is not already the subject matter of the s.53(5) Application. On the basis of the material before me, therefore, I must dismiss this Application as barred by section 53(8).
6This Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of October, 2009.
"Signed By"
__________________________________
Mary Truemner Vice-chair
2