R.H. v. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School, 2010 HRTO 2463

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

R. H.

Applicant

-and-

Kawartha Pine Ridge District School

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: December 13, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2463

Indexed as: R.H. v. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), raises allegations that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability and sex in the provision of goods, services and facilities.

2The original materials filed with the Application were written in a stream-of-consciousness style. Based on these materials, it was difficult to understand the nature of the applicant’s allegations or to discern how they might relate to the Code.

3The Tribunal issued an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2174, directing the applicant to provide to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a revised statement of fact in response to question 8 of the application form. The applicant was directed to clearly explain what happened and why he believes it was discriminatory.

4The applicant has filed a revised statement of fact. In his revised statement, he makes a number of allegations about his and his son’s alleged treatment by the respondent. Even in light of the revised statement of fact, it is difficult to discern how the applicant’s allegations might relate to the Code. He seems to be suggesting that the respondent treated him differently than it did his son’s mother and that this was based on the applicant’s gender.

5The respondent has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking the early dismissal of the Application because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over its subject matter or, in the alternative, because the Application does not raise a prima facie violation of the Code.

6In particular, the respondent argues that the Application does not identify what services, facilities or goods the respondent is alleged to have provided to the applicant. The respondent’s mandate under the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990 ch. E-2 is to provide education services to students. The applicant is not a student and, according to the respondent, the matter does not fall within section 1 or any other section of the Code.

7The applicant has filed a Response to the Request asking that the Tribunal render a final decision in this matter. The documents filed in support of the Response appear to contain further allegations against the respondent.

8While I appreciate that the applicant seeks to have the matter dealt with, in the circumstances, the Tribunal must determine whether it has jurisdiction to deal with the subject-matter of the Application before it can address the substance of the allegations.

9In the circumstances, it is appropriate to give the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions regarding the issue of jurisdiction before making a final determination. The Registrar will schedule a 2 hour hearing by conference call for this purpose.

10The following directions shall apply to the hearing:

a. The only purpose of the hearing is to deal with the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The parties must confine their representations to matters relevant to that issue.

b. The applicant should be prepared to proceed first at the hearing, by responding to the written arguments of the respondent and the issue of whether the respondent provides services, goods or facilities to the applicant;

c. Any party wishing to rely on written materials not already filed with the Tribunal must deliver such documents or information to the other parties and file them with the Registrar 21 days prior to the date of the hearing.

11I am not seized of this matter.