Goldman v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) (No. 1), 2010 HRTO 1432

Goldman v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) (No. 1)

2009-03941-I

2010-07-05

2010 HRTO 1432

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Celia Goldman

Applicant

• and-

Ontario Disability Support Programme and Adjudicator #25, Disability Adjudication Unit

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 5, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1432

Indexed as: Goldman v. Ontario Disability Support Programme

BACKGROUND

1. The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") on October 30, 2009, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of goods, services, and facilities. The Application alleges that the respondents employ a discriminatory policy and practice with respect to the condition of fibromyalgia. In her Application, the applicant states that she is not questioning her eligibility for benefits, but rather seeks to the challenge the respondents' summary rejection of fibromyalgia as a disability.

2. The Tribunal advised the applicant that the Application was incomplete because it did not properly identify the individual respondent.

3. The applicant's representative wrote to the organizational respondent seeking the proper name of the individual respondent. The organizational respondent responded on March 4, 2010 and indicated that it is the organizational respondent's policy to ensure confidentiality of adjudicator identities and, therefore, no name would be provided.

4. On March 25 2010, the Tribunal delivered the Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal not later than 35 days after March 25, 2010. As of the date of this Interim Decision the respondents have not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal's correspondence been returned.

DECISION

Lack of Response

5. An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and organizational respondents without their participation. The respondents' attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:

5.5

Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:

(a)

deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;

(b)

proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;

(c)

deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;

(d)

decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

6. If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, the respondents are required to file a Response within fourteen days of the date of this Interim Decision. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondents and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5. This Interim Decision will be sent to the respondents by regular mail and courier.

7. In addition, in an effort to ensure that the representatives of the organizational respondent responsible for the type of matters raised in the Application are notified of the Application, a copy of the Application and this Interim Decision will be sent by courier to the Legal Services Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which is the ministry responsible for the organizational respondent.

Submissions Regarding Removal of Individual Respondent

8. 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. The Tribunal's Practice Direction On Naming Respondents indicates that "[w]here there is an organizational respondent who may be held liable for the alleged infringement and is in a position to satisfy any remedies ordered, the naming of individual respondents is generally discouraged." Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal's Rules affirms the Tribunal's power to "add or remove a party".

9. The parties are directed to provide their written submissions with respect to whether the individual respondent should remain a party to this Application within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

Proper Organizational Respondent Name

10. The organizational respondent is further ordered, at the time of filing its Response, to confirm it proper name and contact information.

11. I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of July, 2010.

"Signed by"

Ena Chadha

Vice-chair