<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
B E T W E E N:
Sharon Hollywood
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing)
Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
INTERIM DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Date: June 27, 2011
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Citation: 2011 HRTO 1233
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Indexed as: Hollywood v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Reasons for Decision
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request to add a respondent, and the requests to remove a respondent and defer the Application pending a decision by the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) made by the respondents.
[2] The applicant filed her Application on January 26, 2011 alleging discrimination in the provision of services and housing on the basis of age and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application names the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General as respondents.
[3] The respondents, in their jointly filed Response, assert that the Ministry of the Attorney General is not a proper respondent. In her Reply, the applicant acknowledges that the Attorney General is improperly named and states that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing should be named instead. She filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking to add the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
[4] In its Response to the Request for Order (Form 11), the respondents indicate that they are not opposed to the amendment, and state the proper title of proceeding should be Hollywood v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing). This accords with the Tribunal’s practice for naming these respondents.
[5] In addition, the respondents ask that this matter be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal before the SBT. In her Reply, the applicant indicates that she does not object to deferring this matter until the SBT issues its “Stage 1” decision from the hearing scheduled to be heard on May 25, 2011. Once this decision is rendered, the applicant indicates that the parties can re-canvass the issue of deferral if necessary.
# ORDER
[6] In sum, the parties consent to the following orders:
a. The Ministry of the Attorney General is removed as a party respondent to these proceedings;
b. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is added as a party respondent to these proceedings;
c. The style of cause is amended to reflect that the respondents to this Application are Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing).
d. This Application is deferred pending the release of the Stage 1 decision of the appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal.
[7] I am not seized of this matter.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 27<sup>th</sup> day of June, 2011.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel