S.D. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2009 HRTO 8

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

S.D.

Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Mary Auld

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: January 5, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 8

Indexed as: S.D. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 9, 2008, which alleges that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to contracts and services because of his race and colour. The respondents filed a Response on November 3, 2008, which requests an early dismissal of the Application. The applicant’s counsel faxed the Tribunal a Statement of Delivery on November 21, 2008, which indicates that the applicant’s Reply was delivered to the respondents, but the Tribunal has not received the Reply.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to correct the name of the respondent organization, and to deal with the issue of whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to dismiss the Application.

3The Application names the respondent organization as “C.A.S. Children’s Aid Society”, but the Response identifies its proper name as “The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto”. The Tribunal orders that the style of cause be amended accordingly.

4The Response requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Code because a claim has been filed in a civil court, which is based on the same facts and requests a remedy based on the alleged human rights violation. The Application denies that there has been such a court action, and the Response did not include a copy of a statement of claim, a court decision, or any further submissions. As such, the respondents’ request is dismissed.

5The Response also requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because another proceeding has in whole or in part appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. Specifically, the substance of the applicant’s allegations is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice as part of a child protection proceeding that the respondent organization brought against the applicant and his partner. The continuation of a Settlement Conference is scheduled for January 21, 2009.

6In my view, since the child protection proceeding is ongoing, it would be premature for the Tribunal to determine at this stage whether that proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The request is therefore denied without prejudice to the respondents’ right to resume its request when the child protection proceeding is finally determined.

7I am not seized of this matter.