D.F. v. University of Ottawa, 2011 HRTO 1025

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

D.F. by his litigation guardian W.F.

Applicant

-and-

University of Ottawa

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

S.F. by his litigation guardian W.F.

Applicant

-and-

University of Ottawa

Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 27, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1025

Indexed as : D.F. v. University of Ottawa

1These are two Applications made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, both dated January 8, 2009. The underlying complaints were both filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on January 3, 2007.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request by the applicants to review 2011 HRTO 990 refusing an adjournment request of the applicants on the basis that their Litigation Guardian resides outside of the country. The hearing date was set in January 2011and the request to adjourn was made on May 19, 2011.

3On May 27 the applicants’ litigation guardian wrote requesting a review of the decision on the basis that each time the applicants’ litigation guardian takes a trip she must arrange babysitting for her young children and finance the journey. Accordingly, she seeks an adjournment to a time when she is in the country. It is not said why the litigation guardian will be out of the country on a date set for the hearing some months ago, nor is it said when the litigation guardian will be in the country. I also note that while the ligitation guardian is said to be out of the country, there is no indication of the whereabouts of the applicants whose evidence will be required for this hearing.

4In all of the circumstances, including the lengthy history of the matter set out in 2011 HRTO 990, there is no basis to reconsider the Tribunal’s denial of the adjournment request.

Other Matters

5I note that at paragraph 18 of its response the respondent University indicates that the Code “generally defines age as 18 years and over. The Code does not assist the 10 year old complainants in making an age-based complaint in these circumstances.” This preliminary issue ought to be dealt with prior to a hearing on the merits.

6In order to ensure the orderly adjudication of this Application, the Tribunal will entertain the parties’ oral submissions on whether the applicants can establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of age in light of the definition of age in the Code. The applicants have also alleged discrimination on the basis of family status. There do not appear to be any facts pleaded that would support a finding of discrimination on that ground. The parties will also be prepared to make submissions on whether or not the Applications disclose a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of family status.

7Based on the materials filed there appear to be little in dispute on the facts. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled to begin on June 3, 2011, will be converted to a three-hour teleconference for oral submissions on the preliminary issues identified above. The Tribunal will provide details for the conference call in due course.

8I am not seized of this case.