Cathy Ruggles v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2010 HRTO 749

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Cathy Ruggles

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 749

Indexed as: Ruggles v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This is an Application filed November 30, 2009, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of race and colour. In addition to the corporate respondent, the Application named an individual respondent.

2On February 24, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application against the individual respondent. The Notice stated:

It appears the Application as against certain of the named respondents is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the completed Application names the following person as a respondent: Bruno Poppa.

A review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by this individual.

The Tribunal’s powers are limited to hearing and deciding allegations of discrimination within the social areas and based on the grounds contained in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness which are not covered by the Code.

You must provide written submissions explaining how this named individual is alleged to have breached the Code (…).

3On March 11, 2010, the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant dated March 2, 2010. The applicant advised that she was “unsure the reason Bruno Poppa’s name was mentioned rather than the initial person to protect and cover up the racist female bus driver”. The applicant suggested that another person be named as a personal respondent, but did not request that the Tribunal amend her Application to name that other person as a personal respondent.

4Accordingly, the individual respondent, Bruno Poppa, is removed as a party to the Application. The Application will proceed as against the remaining respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

5If the applicant seeks to amend her Application to name another individual respondent, she is directed to file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10), along with the reasons for her request, within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

6I am not seized.