Woodwork v. Salvation Army Canada, 2010 HRTO 1553

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Woodwork

Applicant

-and-

Salvation Army Canada, Bermuda Community and Family Services and Jeff Johnson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: July 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1553

Indexed as: Woodwork v. Salvation Army Canada

1The applicant filed an Application on June 4, 2010 alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, creed, receipt of public assistance and reprisal contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The applicant makes a number of allegations which appear to be centered around an alleged discrepancy in the amount of assistance that she received from the respondents' food bank as compared with others and the respondents' request that she sign a waiver permitting them to collect and use information about her to determine her eligibility for the respondents' services.

2The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite (Form 14), a Request for an Interim Remedy (Form 16), a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry (Form 12), a Request to Intervene (Form 5) and a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10). For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal does not require a response from the respondents in relation to any of these requests and they are denied.

Request to expedite

3The Tribunal's Rules of Procedure ("Tribunal Rules") provide for applications to be dealt with in an expedited manner in urgent circumstances. Rule 21.2.1 of the Tribunal's Rules states that the Tribunal need not give reasons for refusing a Request to Expedite. Having considered the request, in all the circumstances the Request to Expedite this Application is refused.

REQUEST FOR INTERIM REMEDY

4The applicant alleges, among other things, that the respondents' required her to sign a waiver as a condition of receiving its food bank services.

5The applicant alleges that the waiver was not properly explained to her, as a person with a disability. It appears that she also objects to the requirement that she provide personal information to the respondents and to their using that information to determine her eligibility for their services.

6In her Request for Interim Remedy, the applicant asks for an order that "no one is required to sign any form, contract, waiver, application or anything to this effect until the matter is resolved." She further requests that the Salvation Army be required to disclose how it uses certain personal information received from its clients and that it not be permitted to keep this personal information in its databases.

7Although the applicant's Request was made on the required Form 16, it was not accompanied by one or more declarations signed by a person with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all the facts upon which the applicant wished to rely, as required by the Tribunal's Rules (Rule 23.3(b)). The Tribunal has found that the extraordinary step of ordering an interim remedy should not be taken without a proper evidentiary and legal foundation. See Chopra v. Kratiuk, 2009 HRTO 109.

8In this case the applicant has not provided the signed declarations necessary to establish an appropriate evidentiary foundation for her Request. Apart from her failure to comply with the Rules, the applicant has not met the significant onus of establishing that her Request for an Interim Remedy meets all three criteria in Rule 23.2 and is necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code. The request that the Tribunal make orders in relation to how the respondents collect, use and store information from clients, other than the applicant, is an extraordinary measure which, from the materials before me, I do not find justified. The Request is accordingly denied.

REQUEST FOR TRIBUNAL ORDERED INQUIRY

9The applicant has requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to obtain evidence with respect to the amount of assistance offered to other clients and the respondents' practices with respect to its waiver and the personal information it collects from its clients. She asks the Tribunal to investigate the treatment of other clients and help her find answers to questions that she has concerning the respondents' use of personal information.

10As stated in Visconti v. Great-West Life Assurance Company, 2010 HRTO 338 at para. 5:

a Tribunal ordered inquiry will not be a routine event and will not be a substitute for the usual production process contemplated by the Rules. In the normal course the parties are required to produce all arguably relevant documents in their possession. If the parties cannot agree or if one party has reason to believe that there are documents in the possession of a party or other person that have not been produced, the Tribunal has the authority to order the production of materials.

11The Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is denied. The Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provide for a process by which arguably relevant materials must be disclosed by parties to a proceeding at the appropriate time.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

12The applicant has filed a Request to Intervene (Form 5) asking that the "Commission and or an interveener" participate to "stand up for what is right". However, this Form is to be completed by an individual or organization that is asking to intervene in a matter before the Tribunal.

13It thus appears that the applicant has completed this form in error and the Request to Intervene is denied.

REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DURING PROCEEDINGS

14The applicant also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that her Application be dealt with on an urgent basis, requesting a copy of a document she alleges she signed "at Christmas", seeking particulars from the respondents in relation to her claim of discrimination and asking that the Tribunal deal with her Application in writing.

15The request that the matter be dealt with on an urgent basis is the same as the Request to Expedite the Application which has been refused. The requests with regard to documentation and particulars are premature at this time. The respondents have not filed their Response to the Application which may address the matters that the applicant asks to have particularized and as indicated earlier in this Interim Decision, the Tribunal has a process by which parties must exchange documents that are arguably relevant to their matter once hearing dates have been set.

16With respect to the applicant's request that her Application be dealt with in writing, the Tribunal will treat this as a request made under its Policy on Accessibility and Accommodation and it will be dealt with in due course.

17I am not seized.