Christianson v. University of Windsor, 2009 HRTO 806

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

University of Windsor

Respondent

Interim decision

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: June 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 806

Indexed as: Christianson v. University of Windsor

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on November 28, 2008 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of disability in relation to the provision of goods, services and facilities. More specifically, he states that the respondent investigated him, caused him to be detained in hospital and discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it failed to provide him with the names of alleged informants in an investigation.

2In its Response, the respondent asked that the Application be dismissed because another proceeding has in whole or in part appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondents also state that the applicant has not alleged that he was discriminated against in the provision of services and that, in any event, the allegations relate to incidents which occurred well outside the one year period for filing applications under the Code.

3On April 27, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”). On May 27, 2009, the applicant filed written submissions in response to the Notice.

The Allegations

4While the Application refers to many alleged wrongs, I understand the essence of the complaint against the respondent to be twofold:

a. the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his disability in 1991 when it conducted an investigation of the applicant, caused him to be detained in hospital and failed to accommodate his disability; and

b. the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to provide the applicant with information relating to the alleged investigation, specifically the name of an alleged informant.

The Issues

5This matter raises the following preliminary issues:

a. pursuant to s. 34(1), was the Application filed within one year after the incidents to which the Application relates?

b. if not, should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to accept the Application under section 34(2) because the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay?

c. pursuant to section 45.1, has another proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application?

d. does the Application relate to an area of discrimination (for example, a service, good or facility) under section 1 of the Code?

6The Registrar will schedule an oral hearing by telephone conference to address these preliminary issues.

7If either party wishes to rely on case law or other supporting material not already filed with the Tribunal during the hearing, they are directed to deliver this material to each other, and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing.

8I am not seized of this matter.