HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nancy Denesuik
Applicant
-and-
Lennox and Addington Family and Children’s Services and Yvonne Williams
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Denesuik v. Lennox and Addington Family and Children’s Services
1The applicant filed this Application, dated May 19, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal and discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of goods, services and facilities.
2On November 3, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking to add her husband, Wayne Denesuik, as a party and requesting production of a particular document. The respondents filed a Response to a Request for an Order (Form 11) objecting to both the request to add Mr. Denesuik and the request for production. This Interim Decision deals with that Request.
ADDING A PARTY
3It would appear from the documents submitted to the Tribunal by the applicant that the applicant wishes to add her husband as an applicant rather than as either a respondent or an intervenor. Indeed, in her Request for Order as she makes reference to representing him “at Mediation in his absence for anything needed from his perspective.”
4While Rule 1.7 (b) of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure allows the Tribunal to add a party to a proceeding, this provision has been interpreted to allow the Tribunal to add a respondent to the proceeding. In this case, the allegations with respect to the applicant’s husband are founded on separate factual assertions, some of which are alleged to have happened after the applicant filed her Application. The more appropriate course of action would be for a separate application to be filed on behalf of the applicant’s husband, and a request for consolidation to be made if one or more of the parties believe that the separate applications should be dealt with at the same time.
5In addition, the applicant cannot simply file an application on behalf of her husband without his consent. Subsection 34(5) of the Code states:
A person or organization, other than the Commission, may apply on behalf of another person to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2 if the other person,
(a) would have been entitled to bring an application under subsection (1); and
(b) consents to the application [emphasis added].
6Rule 6.1 states:
An Application under sections 34(1) or 34(5) of the Code must be filed in Form 1, Application, or Form 4, Application on Behalf of Another Person respectively, and must be complete [emphasis added].
7The applicant has failed to file either a consent, as required by the Code, or a Form 4, as required by the Rules.
8As there is no basis for adding her husband to her Application, this request is denied.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
9As part of her background search to perform volunteer services as a driver for the organizational respondent, the applicant was required to provide a three-year driver’s abstract. She is now requesting that the individual respondent submit such an abstract for herself to this Tribunal. Without commenting on whether this information is arguably relevant, the request is denied as premature. Rule 16 provides for disclosure of arguably relevant documents, which are not privileged, after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing. No such Confirmation of Hearing has been sent.
10All parties have agreed to attempt mediation. The Tribunal will schedule a mediation on the earliest possible date which is mutually agreeable to the parties.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 18^th^ day of February, 2010.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair