Brown v. Seven Generations Education Institute, 2009 HRTO 909

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laurie Brown

Applicant

-and-

Seven Generations Education Institute and Laura Horton

Respondents

• and-

Queens University Faculty of Education

Intervener

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 25, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 909

Indexed as: Brown v. Seven Generations Education Institute

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in goods, services and/or facilities on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, disability, creed and reprisal. This Interim Decision deals with the following two matters: (1) the respondents’ request to dismiss because of delay and (2) an identified affected party’s request to intervene.

BACKGROUND

2The Application was initially filed on October 31, 2008. Before processing, the Tribunal checked the Application for completeness and returned the Application to the applicant for further information. Shortly thereafter, the applicant provided a completed Application which was sent by the Tribunal to the respondents on February 2, 2009. The Application identified Seven Generations Education Institute (“Seven Generations”), Laura Horton (“Ms. Horton”) and Hunter Horton as respondents.

3In their Response, Seven Generations and Ms. Horton (collectively “the respondents”) explained that there was no such person known as or associated as “Hunter Horton” at Seven Generations. In their Response, the respondents also took the position that the Faculty of Education of Queen’s University was an affected party in this matter. Consequently, a notice was issued by the Tribunal on April 17, 2009 to the Faculty of Education of Queen’s University as an indentified affected party.

4In his Reply, the applicant indicated that he “accepts” that there is no Hunter Horton at Seven Generations. As all parties now acknowledge that there is no person named Hunter Horton in this matter, it is appropriate to delete Hunter Horton as a respondent from the Application. The Tribunal therefore orders that the Application be amended to delete Hunter Horton as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

5On May 22, 2009, the Faculty of Education of Queen’s University (“University”) submitted a Request to Intervene pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

6While neither the applicant nor the respondents have responded to the University’s Request to Intervene, their respective documents indicate that the University and its employees were directly involved in the events described in the Application and Response. More particularly, the University is the organizational entity responsible for the program, its representatives had various communications with the applicant and it was the decision maker in the decision to deny the applicant’s admission into the program. The University clearly has an interest in the alleged events, and the Request to Intervene is not opposed. Therefore, the University’s request to intervene is granted. The scope of the University’s involvement in the hearing will be determined by the Tribunal Vice-chair who hears the matter.

REQUEST TO DIMISS BECAUSE OF DELAY

7Both the respondents, in their Response, and the University, in its Request to Intervene, seek early dismissal of the Application because of delay. The respondents and the University argue that the decision to deny the applicant admission into the program was received by the applicant in June 2007, however he did not file his Application with the Tribunal until October 2008.

8The Application indicates that, in pursuing his concerns, the applicant visited Seven Generations and had communications with Ms. Horton in October/November 2007. The Application includes allegations against Ms. Horton regarding the nature of the discussions that occurred between himself and Ms. Horton in October/November 2007. Although disputing the allegations and the nature of the discussions, Ms. Horton acknowledges that she met with the applicant in October/November 2007.

9Section 34 of the Code provides:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

10It appears that the applicant believes he was discriminated against both with respect to the decision to deny him admission into the program in June 2007 and the alleged discussions that followed in October/November 2007. The Application was filed in October 2008. The Application appears to satisfy the requirement of section 34(1), and as such, the Request to dismiss for delay is denied.

11I am not seized of this matter.