Georgiou v. Northstar Montessori Private School, 2009 HRTO 49

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stefan Georgiou by his Next Friend Nadia Georgiou

Applicant

-and-

Northstar Montessori Private School

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: January 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 49

Indexed as: Georgiou v. Northstar Montessori Private School

1This is an Application filed December 12, 2008 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the Application pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) and a Request for an Interim Remedy pursuant to Rule 23.

2This Interim Decision provides certain case management directions.

BACKGROUND

3The Application alleges that Stefan Georgiou was discriminated against in the provision of services on the ground of disability. Specifically, the applicant submits that Stefan has been identified as an exceptional student who requires certain supports and accommodation because of a disability, but the respondent has failed to properly address or provide for these needs. In addition, on or about December 8, 2008, the school advised the applicant’s parents that Stefan would no longer be accepted at the school effective December 19, 2008. The applicant alleges that the decision to expel Stefan was improper and a violation of the Code.

4The Application, Request to Expedite and Request for Interim Remedy were served on the respondent and filed with the Tribunal on December 12, 2008. The Request for Interim Remedy seeks that Stefan be reinstated into school pending the outcome of these proceedings.

5The Response to the Request for Interim Remedy was due December 19, 2008. The Response to the Request to Expedite was due January 9, 2009. In the normal course, absent the abridging of any time limits by the Tribunal, the response to the Application will be due February 5, 2009. The respondent filed its Response to both the Request for Interim Remedy and the Request to Expedite on January 9, 2009.

6In its Responses, the respondent does not deny that it has advised Stefan’s parents that Stefan will no longer be accepted as a student at the school, but says that it will permit Stefan to attend until January 30, 2009.

7The Tribunal convened a teleconference pre-hearing with the parties on January 14, 2009. At that time, the applicant’s mother, Ms. Georgiou advised that she was no longer seeking that Stefan be reinstated as a student on a permanent basis, but may need an additional two weeks beyond January 30, 2009 to find another school for Stefan to attend. The respondent advised that it was prepared to permit an additional two weeks for Stefan to be placed in another school.

8Ms. Georgiou advised, however, that her decision to move Stefan to another school did not relieve the urgency of the circumstances, since the decision by the respondent to expel Stefan, and the letter of expulsion, might have a negative impact on the ability to find an alternative school for Stefan to attend. Further, she claims that the decision to expel Stefan has had an ongoing and profound effect on Stefan’s self esteem, and his ability to move forward with a positive educational experience.

DECISION

9In view of the position of now taken by the applicant, that he is not seeking to return to the school on a permanent basis, and the agreement to allow the applicant until February 13, 2009 to find an alternative school to attend, I find that it is not necessary to address the Request for Interim Remedy. However, in my view there may be some urgency in resolving this matter, given the potential impact on the health and well being of Stefan. At this point, I do not have sufficient materials before me, or full submissions on whether and in what way it may be appropriate to expedite the processing of this Application.

10As a result, I order that the parties attend the Tribunal on January 20, 2009 at 10:00 am for an in person case conference. At that time the parties will be required to address the Request to Expedite, and make submissions on how this Application should proceed, including whether any of the time limits in the Rules for the taking of any steps should be abridged.

11I further order that no later than 2:00 pm on January 19, 2009 the parties deliver to one another, and file with the Tribunal, any documents which they may choose to rely upon in their submissions to the Tribunal on January 20, 2009. At the same time, the respondent is directed to deliver to the applicant, and file with the Tribunal, a copy of the letter which advised that Stefan would no longer be accepted at the school.

12I am not seized of this matter.