Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2009 HRTO 527

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dylan Sigrist by his litigation guardian Lori Sigrist and Andy Carson by his litigation guardian Paula Soares-Carson

Complainants

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

London District Catholic School Board, Gary Clarke, Jeff Gillies, Joseph Rapai, Terry Grand, Anne Kavelaars, Evelyn Paparella, Tamara Nugent and Des Desalaiz

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: April 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 527

Indexed as: Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board

1This Interim Decision confirms matters determined at a pre-hearing conference call held on April 20, 2009.

Hearing Briefs and Disclosure

2The following timetable was established for the filing of hearing briefs and for making disclosure in this matter:

a) By no later than May 20, 2009, the Commission shall serve on the other parties and file with the Tribunal its hearing brief in accordance with Rule 57 and either shall make full production and disclosure to the parties in accordance with Rule 59 or shall confirm to the parties that this already has been done.

b) By no later than June 1, 2009, the complainants shall serve on the other parties and file with the Tribunal their hearing brief(s) in accordance with Rule 60 and either shall make full production and disclosure to the parties in accordance with Rule 62 or shall confirm to the parties that this already has been done.

c) By no later than June 22, 2009, the respondents shall serve on the other parties and file with the Tribunal their hearing brief in accordance with Rule 63 and shall make full production and disclosure to the parties in accordance with Rule 65.

d) By no later than June 29, 2009, the Commission and the complainants shall serve and file any reply in accordance with Rule 66.

Preliminary Matters

3The respondents have made a request to remove certain personal respondents as parties to this proceeding. This matter will be determined following the filing of hearing briefs as requested by the complainants.

4I also requested submissions from the parties on the following issues in accordance with the following timetable:

a) By no later than July 31, 2009, the respondents shall serve on the other parties and file with the Tribunal their written submissions, including any evidence, caselaw or authorities upon which they rely, regarding the following issues:

i) Whether the Special Education Tribunal established under the Education Act has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the placement and accommodation of students with special needs such that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter. In their submissions, the respondents should address the following cases: Regina Police Assn. Inc. v. Regina (City) Board of Police Commissioners 2000 SCC 14, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360 and Quebec (Attorney General) v. Quebec (Human Rights Tribunal) 2004 SCC 40, [2004] S.C.J. No. 35.

ii) Whether the doctrine of mootness applies to this matter, particularly in light of the age and grade level of the two complainants. In their submissions, the respondents should address the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Lanark Leeds & Grenville County Catholic School Board v. Ontario (HRC) [1989] O.J. No. 513 as well as other decisions on mootness.

iii) If this matter does proceed to a hearing, whether the hearing should be bifurcated to deal first with the issue of the Board’s liability and then subsequently, and only if a violation of the Code is found, address issue of remedy.

b) By no later than August 31, 2009, the Commission shall serve and file any written submissions in response, including any evidence or caselaw upon which it relies.

c) By no later than September 15, 2009, the complainants shall serve and file any written submissions in response, including any evidence or caselaw upon which they rely.

d) By no later than September 29, 2009, the respondents shall serve and file any written submissions in reply.

Notice to the Ministry of Education and Special Education Tribunal

5In light of the issue raised as to the jurisdiction of the Special Education Tribunal, I am requesting written submissions from the Ministry of Education and from the Special Education Tribunal by having a copy of this Interim Decision sent to counsel who formerly represented the Ministry of Education in this matter and to the Chair of the Special Education Tribunal.

6If the Ministry of Education and/or the Special Education Tribunal wish to make submissions on the jurisdictional issue, they shall do so in accordance with the timelines and requirements established for written submissions to be served and filed by the respondents, as set out above.