C.G. v. Simcoe County District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1360

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

C.G. by his Next Friend L.V. Applicant

-and-

Simcoe County District School Board, Holly Warwick, Linda Zaresky, Paul Sloan and Heather Burchel Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: July 20, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1360 Indexed as: C.G. v. Simcoe County District School Board

1In January 2010, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”), in Tribunal file 2010-04677-I, alleging that the respondents have discriminated against him with respect to educational services on the basis of disability, and reprised against him contrary to the Code, since in or around February 2009. Among other things, the applicant alleges that the respondents have denied him access to the Ontario school curriculum and refused to revise his Individual Education Plan (“I.E.P.”) to include educational content, thereby discriminating against him on the basis of disability. The applicant also alleges that the respondents reprised against him for filing a previous human rights claim against the respondent, which claim was settled by the parties in February 2009, by refusing to adhere to established guidelines regarding I.E.P. revision and conflict resolution, among other things.

2The applicant also filed an Application under s. 45.9 of the Code in Tribunal file 2010-04676-S alleging that the respondents contravened the February 12, 2009 settlement of his previous human rights complaint.

3This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ Request for an Order during Proceeding (“the Request”) that the Tribunal dismiss the Application in File 2010-04677-I on the basis that it is duplicative of the Application in File 2010-04676-S; or in the alternative, make an order consolidating the Applications.

4Having reviewed the materials, I cannot agree with the respondents that the File in 2010-04677-I merely duplicates the Application in File 2010-04676-S. In my view, the legal issues in the two Applications are distinct. In File 2010-04676-S, the applicant alleges that the respondents contravened the terms of a contract (i.e. the settlement agreement) to which they agreed to be bound, contrary to s. 45.9 of the Code. In File 2010-04677-I, the applicant alleges that the respondents infringed his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to educational services, contrary to s. 1 of the Code; and that the respondents reprised against him for filing the human rights complaint, which was settled by the parties in February 2009, contrary to s. 8 of the Code. These issues are not raised, nor could they be raised, in the Contravention of Settlement Application (File 2010-04676-S). Thus, and assuming without finding that the Tribunal has the power to dismiss an Application on the basis that it is duplicative of another Application, I do not find the Application in 2010-04677-I to be duplicative of the Application in 2010-04676-S and this aspect of the respondents’ Request is denied accordingly.

5I do agree with the respondents that there is significant overlap in the facts underlying the Applications in Tribunal Files 2010-04676-S and 2010-04677-I insofar as both Applications relate to the respondents’ alleged actions towards the applicant following the signing of the February 12, 2009 Minutes of Settlement. In light of the substantial overlap of the factual issues raised in the Applications, and in order to minimize the possibility of inconsistent decisions on the factual issues raised in the Applications, the Applications will be processed together by the Tribunal and heard by one adjudicator. The decision about whether or not the Applications ought to be consolidated, heard together, or heard serially will be determined by the Vice-chair assigned to hear the Applications, along with any other issues regarding the hearing process.

6I am not seized.