Browne v. Niagara (Regional Municipality), 2010 HRTO 840

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Browne Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Niagara Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: April 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 840 Indexed as: Browne v. Niagara (Regional Municipality)

1This Application was filed March 31, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) is scheduled for May 19, 2010. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the addition of a party.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant self-identifies as a person with a disability who is unable to obtain a driving licence. She asserts that she is unable to secure employment as a result of her inability to drive and therefore began self-employment. She asserts that her self-employment requires her to travel from her home in St. Catharines to Niagara Falls, Port Colbourne and Welland, but that regional transit services are insufficient to meet her needs. She filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in April 2006. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for May 19, 2010.

NO PRIMA FACIE CASE

3On March 1, 2010 the respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking dismissal of the Application on the basis that the facts as alleged in the Application do not contravene the Code. It appears to me that the most fair, just and expeditious manner to determine this issue is at the hearing scheduled for May 19, 2010, rather than on the basis of written submissions.

ADDITION OF A PARTY

4On March 26, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to add the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the “Ministry”) on the basis that the Ministry is ultimately responsible for municipal affairs and could issue legislation requiring the respondent to achieve an accessible, affordable, reliable and useable inter-municipal transit system.

5On April 12, the Ministry wrote to the Tribunal seeking an extension of time until May 6, 2010 to file a Response to a Request for Order as they had never been involved in the Application before. The Ministry is not required to file a Response.

6The Tribunal has held that where alleged facts, if proven, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code; and the proposed respondent would not suffer real and substantial prejudice if added as a party to the proceeding, the proposed respondent may be added as a party to the proceeding, at the Tribunal’s discretion: Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006 HRTO 22. While Greenhorn was decided under the old Code, the principles remain applicable in this case.

7I find that it is not appropriate to add the Ministry as a party at this stage of the proceedings. I am not satisfied that the facts as set out in the original complaint could result in any finding of a breach of the Code by the Ministry. They are not mentioned in the original complaint. The applicant filed her complaint in April 2006 and at no time prior to March 26, 2010 did she seek to involve the Ministry in this proceeding. The hearing is scheduled for May 19, 2010 and the addition of the Ministry at this stage would necessitate an adjournment in order to permit them to prepare a response to the Request for Order, and considerable time for them to prepare a response on the merits (if they were to be added). It is not fair, just or expeditious to add the Ministry at this stage of the proceedings.

AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT

8The applicant seeks to amend the complaint to allege constructive discrimination. An amendment is not required in order for the applicant to make an argument that the lack of transit services amounts to a breach of section 11 of the Code.