M.D. v. Toronto District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1222

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

M.D by his Next Friend K.D. Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic District School Board Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: June 27, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1222 Indexed as: M.D. v. Toronto District School Board

1The applicant is a child under the age of eighteen. Pursuant to Rule 3.11.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, he and his Next Friend will be referred to by initials in this and all other Tribunal decisions, (as will other participants in the proceeding if this is necessary to protect M.D.’s privacy).

2M.D’s Next Friend filed an Application on his behalf under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 19, 2010. An attempt at mediation has been unsuccessful.

3The Application alleges discrimination with respect to services on the ground of disability. The details of the Application refer to Duke of Connaught Public School and St. Joseph's Catholic School. Two other schools, Withrow Public School and Canadian Martyrs Catholic School, are noted in the Application as “previous sites”, but no specific allegations in respect of those schools are made. The dates given for the allegations referred to in the Application are April of 2010, November of 2009, and an unspecified date in 2006.

4On May 19, 2011, the respondent Toronto District School Board filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”), expressed as a “request to amend” the Application. However the Request is clearly a request for an order that the applicant be required to give details of further allegations raised in an e-mail during the proceedings, and a request that if any of those allegations relate to the years 2003 to 2005, they be dismissed for delay.

5The applicant has not responded to the Request, and the time for doing so has expired.

6The Request refers to an e-mail from K.D. to counsel for Toronto District School Board dated May 4, 2011. The e-mail alleges that M.D. experienced discrimination at Withrow Public School. K.D. alleges that M.D. was “regularly paired with a Down’s Syndrome student” and denied access to the French Immersion program. The e-mail also states that “the sole recommendation by the school support team was the K.I.P. program [at another school]”. The e-mail also refers to “strategies to move [M.D]. along”. It appears that K.D.’s position is that these allegations should be taken into consideration by the Tribunal along with the allegations made in the Application, but this is not clear, and the Tribunal had received no request from K.D. to amend the Application.

7In making allegations in respect of an Application to the Tribunal, the parties are expected to provide as much detail as possible of the “who, what, when and where” variety. If possible, specific dates should be given. Events should be described. The allegations made in the e-mail lack sufficient detail of this nature.

8In its Request, the respondent Toronto District School Board asserts that M.D. attended Withrow Public School only during the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 school years, and thus left Withrow Public School almost five years before the Application was filed.

9Section 34 of the Code provides as follows:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay

Order

10As noted above, it is not clear that the applicant’s Next Friend intends that the allegations noted in her e-mail to the respondent Toronto District School Board be considered by the Tribunal as part of the Application.

11If the applicant’s Next Friend intends that the allegations noted in her May 4 e-mail to the respondent Toronto District School Board be considered by the Tribunal as part of the Application, she must deliver to the respondents and to the Tribunal a statement about precisely what actions or omissions the applicant alleges may have breached the Code. The statement should include the dates at which such actions or omissions at Withrow Public School allegedly occurred, as well as the names and/or titles of who was involved.

12If the applicant’s Next Friend intends that the allegations noted in her May 4 e-mail to the respondent Toronto District School Board be considered by the Tribunal as part of the Application, she must also explain why the exceptions to the one-year limit noted in s. 34 (above) apply in her situation.

13If the applicant’s Next Friend intends that the allegations noted in her May 4 e-mail to the respondent Toronto District School Board be considered by the Tribunal as part of the Application, she must send the information referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12 above to the respondents and to the Tribunal by July 13, 2011. In the event of disruption in postal services, documents may be faxed to the Tribunal at 416-326-2199, and to the respondents, and may also be delivered by e-mail.

14If the applicant’s Next Friend sends the above-noted information to the Tribunal and the respondents, the respondents may respond to it by August 3, 2011.

15If the applicant’s Next Friend does not send the above-noted information, the Application will proceed on the basis of the allegations already asserted, and the allegations noted in her May 4 e-mail to the respondent Toronto District School Board will not be considered by the Tribunal as part of the Application.

16I am not seized of this matter.