C.N. v. Lake Head District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1149

B E T W E E N:

C.N. by his next friend R.N. Applicant

-and-

Lakehead District School Board, Lucie Nadeau, Thunder Bay Police Services Board, Shawn Harrison, Sylvia Hauth, Her Majesty the Queen, as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Dan Mitchell Respondents

-and-

R.N. Applicant

-and-

J.N. Applicant

-and-

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: June 13, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1149 Indexed as: C.N. v. Lake Head District School Board

1This Interim Decision pertains to three related Applications. Application 2010-04892-I was filed by R.N. on behalf of her minor son C.N., and Application 2010-04889-I was filed on her own behalf. The applicant in Application 2010-04890-I is C.N.’s father and R.N.’s spouse.

2By way of Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 1610, the Tribunal determined a number of preliminary issues, including that the three Applications should be consolidated and proceed together. The Tribunal also determined that it could not decide at that preliminary stage whether the Applications raise allegations within a Code-protected social area and whether the facts and allegations come within the ambit of prosecutorial immunity.

3The Tribunal is in receipt of correspondence from the respondents Ministry of the Attorney General and Dan Mitchell (the “Crown”) dated June 10, 2011 requesting that the Tribunal, on its own initiative, reconsider Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 1610 and/or provide clarification with respect to whether the Crown may file a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) regarding the issues of whether the Applications raise allegations within a Code-protected social area and prosecutorial immunity or if these issues should only be raised after a full evidentiary hearing. The Crown also indicates that it can only participate in the mediation to the extent that it may engage in discussions about legal and procedural issues for the purpose of trying to resolve issues as efficiently as possible.

4It appears that the respondent Crown filed earlier correspondence about the above-noted matters; however, due to administrative oversight, that correspondence was not brought to the Vice-chair’s attention. The respondent seeks directions prior to the mediation scheduled for June 15, 2010.

5On November 23, 2010, the applicant filed a RFOP asking the Tribunal to anonymize the applicants’ identity. All respondents consent, except the Crown which takes no position.

DECISION

Reconsideration

6The Tribunal declines to reconsider the previous Interim Decision on its own initiative.

Anonymization

7The applicants’ request to anonymize their names is granted. The Tribunal notes that Rule 3.11.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that the Tribunal will use initials in its decisions to identify a child under age 18, the next friend of that child, and the names of other participants in the proceeding if necessary to protect the identity of the minor child.

Directions Re. Crown’s Correspondence

8The mediation scheduled for June 15, 2011 will proceed given the agreement by all parties that they are prepared to participate to some extent in the process of mediation.

9The Crown may file a RFOP after the mediation and the adjudicator assigned to hear the Applications may determine what stage of the proceedings to hear the RFOP.

10I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of June, 2011.

“signed by”

Ena Chadha Vice-chair