HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

N.P. by her litigation guardian, L.P.

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa–Carleton District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: June 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1363

Indexed as: N.P. v. Ottawa–Carleton District School Board

[1] This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), dated June 17, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on April 25, 2005.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request for removal of the personal respondents as parties to this proceeding.

3The applicant is a minor child with a developmental disability. Her complaint alleges discrimination because of disability, reprisal and breach of settlement arising out of four specific events that are alleged to have occurred during the course of her attendance at two elementary schools that are part of the respondent school board.

4The first allegation is that on June 8, 2001, the applicant was locked out of her home elementary school because they did not provide special education in French immersion. As none of the personal respondents was employed at this school, this allegation appears to relate to the school board and not to the personal respondents.

5The second allegation is that on September 1, 2003, the respondent school board removed certain supports and services that had been provided to the applicant at a second elementary school. It is alleged that the decision to remove these supports was made by the personal respondent Ms. Wilson as Principal of this school.

6The third allegation is that on October 27, 2004, there was an incident at the school where the applicant was injured. It is alleged that the personal respondents Ms. Wilson and Ms. Cheaitani, who was the applicant’s classroom teacher, were involved in and responsible for this incident.

7Finally, it is alleged that on February 7, 2005, the applicant alleges that she was berated by the personal respondents Ms. Cheaitani and Mr. Brown, who was the special education resource teacher at the school, when she was being disciplined.

8The principles relating to the removal of personal respondents have been set out in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, primarily in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31. In the instant case, there is no issue that the respondent school board is alleged to be responsible for the conduct at issue, that no issue is being raised by the school board as to its deemed or vicarious liability for the actions of its employees, and that this respondent is able to respond to any remedy that may be awarded.

9The question comes down to the issue as to whether there is any compelling reason to continue the proceeding as against any of these personal respondents. In my view, I do not see any compelling reason to do so. The relationship between the respondents and the applicant’s parents has been difficult, and over the years has been the subject of at least one prior unsuccessful human rights complaint by the applicant and a successful civil action in defamation by the personal respondent Ms. Wilson against the applicant’s mother and litigation guardian. The school board already has agreed to assume responsibility for the actions of any of the individual personal respondents, should any of their actions be found to have been in violation of the Code.

10I concur with the statement made in Haynes v. Ottawa-Carlton District School Board, 2009 HRTO 126 at para. 13:

The role of the Tribunal is to ensure a fair, just and expeditious process for bringing this complaint to a final conclusion. In my view, those important objects can be achieved by removing the individually named respondents. The complainant’s right to a full hearing on the merits will not be affected and the full range of remedial orders will be available if the complainant is successful.

[11] Similarly, in the instant case, it is my view that the important objects of ensuring a fair, just and expeditious process for bringing this Application to its final conclusion similarly can be achieved by removing the individually named respondents, without affecting the applicant’s right to a full hearing on the merits or the substance of the remedies sought in her complaint.

[12] For all of these reasons, the respondents’ request is granted and the personal respondents Joan Wilson, Carla Cheaitani and Ron Brown are removed as parties to this proceeding. The title of proceeding will be amended accordingly.

13I am not seized.