Logtenberg v. Ontario (Finance), 2009 HRTO 2224

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Lynn Logtenberg Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Finance (Financial Services Commission of Ontario) Respondents

And Between:

Lynn Logtenberg Applicant

-and-

Multi Disciplinary Assessment Centre Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: December 18, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2224 Indexed as: Logtenberg v. Ontario (Finance)

1These are two Applications filed June 30, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Applications relate to the applicant's attendance at the Multi Disciplinary Assessment Centre ("MDAC") on November 24, 2004. She alleges that the MDAC discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to permit her chosen aide to attend with her.

3The assessment was not conducted and the applicant requested her insurance company seek a second assessment. It refused on the basis that a second request to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario ("FSCO") is not permitted. The applicant wrote directly to FSCO and requested the selection of an alternative Disability Assessment Centre ("DAC"). FSCO wrote to the applicant respondent advising that the legislation, the regulations and the guidelines did not permit it to recommend an alternative DAC in the circumstances.

Processing Applications Together

4The applicant opposes processing the Applications together.

5The Tribunal's Rules for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code (the "Rules") are to be interpreted and applied in a way that ensures a fair, just and highly expeditious process for the determination of these Applications.

6The applicant has set out an identical chronology in each Application. The facts are interrelated, in the sense that the alleged discrimination by MDAC was allegedly compounded by FSCO, or the legislation, regulations and guidelines set by the Minister of Finance.

7These Applications involve similar and related facts and appear to raise similar legal issues. Accordingly, I find, pursuant to Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m), that in order to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for their resolution, these Applications should be processed together.

8Accordingly, the Tribunal will process the Applications together.

No Response

9The Tribunal notes that MDAC has not filed a response.

10A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding, which, if a violation of the Code is found, may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The respondent's attention is drawn to Rule 3.2 of the Rules which reads as follows:

3.2 Where an Application (Form A or Form TR-1)) is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:

a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application, including the allegations set out in the complaint;

b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;

c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;

d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

11If MDAC intends to participate in this proceeding it shall file its response within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation why the response should be accepted at this time.

Mediation

12The FSCO respondent and the applicant have agreed to mediation. The Registrar-Transition will contact the parties to schedule mediation.