S. L-M. v. York Region District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1141

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

S. L-M. by his next friend H. L.

Applicant

-and-

York Region District School Board, Al Mainprize, Asah Rathod,

Clayton La Touche, Jossette Sassoon, Kathy Williams,

Ruth Lambert and Scott Yake

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: May 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1141

Indexed as: S. L-M. v. York Region District School Board

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 June 18, 2009 alleging discrimination in educational services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, family status and marital status. Attached to the Application was a 48 page document containing 128 paragraphs of allegations (“the chronology”).

2A previous Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 153, was issued by the Tribunal dismissing the Application against 5 individual respondents. The allegations did not pertain to those 5 individual respondents.

3The respondents have not yet filed a Response. A Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated March 1, 2010 was filed in which the respondents submit that the procedural issues they are raising are required to be determined by the Tribunal before a Response can be filed. The respondents request that:

a) the allegations and remedies set out in the chronology pertaining to the applicant’s mother and his sisters be dismissed as they are not applicants to the Application;

b) particulars of 14 identified paragraphs be provided by the applicant; and

c) the Tribunal extend the time for filing a Response.

4The respondents also returned the Application sent to the individual respondent Asah Rathod at her work address because she is on pregnancy leave and out of the country.

5The applicant, who is now represented by counsel, filed a Response to a Request for an Order (“Response to RFOP”) on April 13, 2010 as well as his own RFOP on the same date. In his RFOP, the applicant seeks to add his 2 sisters and his mother as applicants to the Application. In his Response to RFOP, the applicant requests that the Tribunal defer ruling on dismissing the allegations and remedies in the chronology pertaining to the applicant’s mother and sisters until the Tribunal has ruled whether or not they can be added as applicants to the Application. The applicant does not oppose the respondents’ request for an extension of time to file their Response.

6The respondents filed a Response to the April 13 RFOP opposing the addition of applicants. The respondents submit that the allegations in the chronology pertaining to the applicant’s mother and sisters are outside the one year limitation period established by section 34(2) of the Code. The respondents also take the position that the applicant’s mother should not been named as an applicant because the chronology does not contain any allegations of discrimination contrary to the Code specifically pertaining to her.

7In this situation, the Tribunal has determined that the fairest, most just and expeditious way to address these issues is to schedule a two hour conference call hearing. During the conference call hearing, the parties should be prepared to provide their positions on the following issues:

a) Should the applicant’s sisters and mother be added as parties?

b) Are the applicant’s sisters and mother prevented from proceeding with their allegations on the basis of delay and whether their delay was incurred in good faith?

c) The parties’ position on the particulars requested by the respondents in relation to paragraphs 5, 14, 21, 22, 65, 78 and 95; 6 and 10; and 8, 39, 41, 51 and 101 of the chronology.

d) Should the Application continue as against Asah Rathod?

8If any party wishes to rely on any additional written materials (including written submissions, documents or case law) or facts not already before the Tribunal, they must deliver such additional material to the other party and file it with the Registrar within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The parties may wish to have regard to Rules 1.7(b) and (d) as well as Denesuik v. Lennox and Addington Family and Children’s Services, 2010 HRTO 373, and the Tribunal’s case law in relation to section 34(2), which is found at www.canlii.org.

9I am not seized of this matter.