Mohammed v. The Michener Institute, 2010 HRTO 1140

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ahmed Mohammed

Applicant

-and-

The Michener Institute, Felita Kwan, Kathleen Olden-Powell, Genalyn Lo, Sheelah Finlayson, Cathy Pearl, Donald Bartlett and Sydney Redpath

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: May 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1140

Indexed as: Mohammed v. The Michener Institute

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 February 8, 2010 alleging discrimination on the basis of creed in the provision of educational services. The applicant alleges that the respondents failed to accommodate his religious beliefs and, as a consequence, he failed to complete the program in which he was enrolled.

2On April 30, 2010, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) to the applicant stating that it appeared that the Application as against certain of the individual respondents, Kathleen Olden-Powell and Degan Davis, is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of the alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by these individuals. The Tribunal requested that the applicant produce written submissions explaining how the identified individual respondents are alleged to have breached the Code.

3The applicant filed his submissions on May 11, 2010. He submitted that Degan Davis should not have been named as an individual respondent. He provided further information about the allegations related to Ms. Olden-Powell, specifically that she was one of the decision makers with respect to the termination of the applicant from the program in which he was enrolled.

4Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules affirms the Tribunal’s power to “add or remove a party”. The question of whether an individual is properly named as a personal respondent in a human rights application has been considered in a number of Tribunal decisions, including Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31.

5Having regard for the applicant’s submission that Degan Davis should not have been named as an individual respondent, I order that Degan Davis be removed as a personal respondent to the Application and the style of cause is amended to reflect this removal.

6As the applicant’s submissions suggest, Kathleen Olden-Powell was involved as a decision maker in relation to his termination from the program. At this point it is not plain and obvious that she should not be named as a personal respondent. Accordingly the Tribunal shall send the Application to the respondents, including Kathleen Olden-Powell.

7I am not seized of this matter.