HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Eileen Buren
Applicant
-and-
London District Catholic School Board and Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha
Indexed as: Buren v. London District Catholic School Board
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on October 27, 2009.
2On January 25, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents. The respondents were advised that a Response must be filed with the Tribunal within 35 days, meaning before March 1, 2010.
3On February 2, 2010, counsel for the respondent, London District Catholic School Board, filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) requesting the removal of the respondents, London District Catholic School Board—Our Lady of Lourdes School and Catholic Education Centre. The reason given for the request is that neither of these two named respondents is a legal entity capable of responding to the Application or of being the subject of an order pursuant to the Code. The respondent maintains that Our Lady of Lourdes School is owned and operated by the London District Catholic School Board, while the Catholic Education Centre is simply the name of the building in which the school board’s offices are located. The respondent maintains that the proper respondents to this proceeding are the London District Catholic School Board and Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services only.
4Presumably, in making this submission, the respondent school board is also representing itself as vicariously liable for any of the alleged actions attributed to the two erroneously named organizational respondents.
5The respondents have not filed their Responses, as the deadline has not yet passed. No submissions were received from the applicant in response to the respondent’s request.
6Normally, a Request for Order During Proceedings will not be dealt with until the respondents have all complied with their obligation to file a complete Response. However, in the circumstances, it makes sense to consider the request immediately, as seeks to clarify the identity of the parties to the Application.
7Assuming the respondent school board’s submissions to be true and accurate, there appears to be no basis to continue the Application as against the two erroneously named respondents, who apparently do not exist as legal entities and whose prospective liability, if any, would be captured by the respondent school board.
8The Tribunal therefore orders that Our Lady of Lourdes School and Catholic Education Centre be removed as respondents from the Application, and the style of cause and notice list be amended accordingly.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of February, 2010.
“Signed By”
Faisal Bhabha
Vice-chair