Donevan v. University of Windsor, 2009 HRTO 2070

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Donevan

Applicant

-and-

University of Windsor, William Gallant, Brent Angel, Clayton Smith and Ross Paul

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: December 1, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2070 Indexed as: Donevan v. University of Windsor

1This Application was filed May 22, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to add respondents to this proceeding and a request for production.

Background

2In his original complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission dated May 30, 2005, the applicant alleges that he was discriminated against because of disability because the respondents refused to permit him to record classes as a form of accommodation. The respondents assert that the applicant was permitted to record lectures, but not personal discussions.

Addition of Respondents

3The applicant seeks to add Elizabeth Oakley, Kim Harper, Alan Wildeman, Barbara Niewitecka, Danielle Isti and Charles James as he alleges they directly contributed to the discrimination which is ongoing.

4The applicant does not indicate who these persons are or how they participated in the discrimination. None of these persons are named in the original complaint.

5Therefore, there is no basis to add these persons as respondents.

Production

6After the Tribunal sets a date for hearing, deadlines are established for the parties to disclose all arguably relevant documents to each other. No such dates have been set, so the request for production is premature.

Scope of the Application

7In his Request, the applicant asserted that the discrimination is ongoing. The transitional provisions of the Code provide that the subject matter of the Application must relate to the original complaint. Accordingly, these post-complaint events do not form the subject matter of the present Application.

8Nothing in this Interim Decision affects the applicant's ability to file a fresh application with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34(1) of the Code, provided the other requirements of that section have been met.

9The request to add respondents and for production is denied.