HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
R.J. by her next friend T.J.
Applicant
-and-
North Bay Canoe Club and Mark Robinson
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
T.M. by her next friend G.M.
Applicant
-and-
North Bay Canoe Club and Mark Robinson
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Indexed as: R.J. v. North Bay Canoe Club
1This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking an Order requiring the applicants to amend and re-file their Applications; an extension of the time for the respondents to file their Responses to the Applications; and an Order that the Applications will be dealt with separately by the Tribunal (“the Request”). This Interim Decision also deals with a Request by the applicant in Tribunal file 2011-08282-I to amend her Application to include allegations of reprisal.
BACKGROUND
2On March 7, 2011, the applicant in Tribunal file 2011-08282-I filed an Application under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”), alleging that the respondents discriminated against her daughter, the claimant R.J., on the basis of sex with respect to services. That Application also alleges that the respondents discriminated against T.M., the claimant in Tribunal file 2011-08444-I, on the basis of disability.
3On March 7, 2011, the applicant in Tribunal file 2011-08444-I filed an Application under s.34 of the Code alleging that the respondents discriminated against his daughter, the claimant T.M., on the basis of disability with respect to services. That Application similarly alleges that the respondents discriminated against R.J., the claimant in Tribunal file 2011-08282-I, on the basis of sex. The Statement of Facts attached to the Application in Tribunal file 2011-08444-I is identical to that attached to Tribunal file 2011-08282-I.
Request to have the Applications Amended and Re-filed
4In their Request, the respondents seek an Order from the Tribunal requiring the applicants to amend their Applications so that each Application is confined to the alleged discrimination against the person on whose behalf it is filed (i.e. the claimant in each case). The respondents also seek an extension of time for the filing of their Responses to the Applications.
5In their responses to the Request, the applicants consent to amend and re-file their respective Applications as requested by the respondents. They also seek an extension of time for the filing of their amended Applications.
6Having regard to all of the circumstances, and particularly the consent of the applicants, this aspect of the respondents’ Request is granted. The applicants are to amend their Applications as follows: each Application should be confined to the facts, allegations and submissions the applicant wishes to put before the Tribunal in support of the claim that the respondents discriminated against the claimant in that case only.
7The applicants are directed to deliver a copy of their amended Applications to the respondents, and to file them with the Tribunal, within the time frame identified below.
Request to amend Application to include allegations of reprisal
8On July 25, 2011, the applicant in Tribunal file 2011-08282-I filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings in which she seeks to amend her Application to include allegations of reprisal and to seek a remedy in respect of such alleged reprisals by the respondents. Specifically, the applicant alleges that since finding out about her Human Rights Application, the respondents have excluded the claimant in Tribunal file 2011-08282-I from participating in any Club activities because the applicant would not sign a document acknowledging, among other things, that “any further escalation of matters to outside parties… will not be tolerated.” These allegations were not included in the March 2011 Application because they had not yet occurred.
9The respondents have not filed a Response to the applicant’s Request to Amend her Application or filed any material with the Tribunal indicating that they would be prejudiced if the applicant’s request were granted. Moreover, given the early stage at which the applicant’s request is made, and given that the respondents have not yet filed their Response to the Application, I cannot see that any prejudice would result to the respondents if the applicant’s Request to Amend were granted.
10In the circumstances, the applicant’s Request to amend her Application in Tribunal file 2011-08282-I to include allegations of reprisal and to seek a remedy for reprisals is granted. When she amends her Application in Tribunal file 2011-08282-I in accordance with the direction above, the applicant should also include the amendments she seeks to make with respect to reprisal.
Applicants’ request for extension of time
11In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant the applicants’ request for an extension of time to file their amended Applications. The applicants are hereby directed to deliver a copy of their amended Applications to the respondents and to file them with the Tribunal within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
Respondents’ request for extension of time
12In their Request, the respondents also ask that they be given 60 days from the date of receipt of the amended Applications within which to file their Responses to the Applications in Tribunal files 2011-08282-I and 2011-08444-I. In the normal course, the respondents would have had 35 days from the date of the Notice of Application to file their Responses to the Applications. The respondents submit that the 35-day period is not sufficient to allow them to gather information, meet and organize their Responses to the Applications in light of the fact that they are an organization run by volunteers who meet infrequently.
13The applicants oppose this aspect of the respondents’ Request and maintain that the respondents should be required to file their Responses to the Applications within 35 days of receipt of the amended Applications.
14In this case, the respondents were sent Notices of the Applications on June 7, 2011. In the normal course, they were required to file their Responses to the Applications by no later than July 12, 2011. I am not persuaded that the respondents could not have filed Responses to the Applications within the requisite time frame, notwithstanding their status as an organization staffed by volunteers and notwithstanding that the Applications filed contained a common statement of alleged facts. I am also somewhat troubled by the fact that the respondents waited until July 12, 2011, the date on which their Responses were due, to seek an extension of time for the filing of their Responses.
15In all of the circumstances, I find it appropriate to direct the respondents to file their Response to each amended Application within 21 days of receiving it from the applicant. This means that the respondents will have until at least mid-November 2011 to respond to complaints they received in June 2011. In my view, this time is more than adequate to allow the respondents to respond to the Applications.
Respondents’ Request that the Applications be considered separately
16In their Request, the respondents also ask that the Tribunal “supervise, investigate and consider” each Application separately. The Tribunal does not supervise or investigate Applications. However, for the time being, the Applications will be processed separately by the Tribunal.
17It should be noted that this is not a final decision with respect to whether the Applications will be considered separately by the Tribunal if and when they proceed to a hearing. If and when that issue arises, the parties will have an opportunity to make further submissions before the issue is determined.
ORDER AND DIRECTIONS
18In summary, the Tribunal orders as follows:
Within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicants shall amend, deliver a copy of their amended Applications to the respondents, and file their amended Applications with the Tribunal. Each amended Application should be confined to the facts, allegations and submissions the applicant wishes to put before the Tribunal in support of the claim that the respondents discriminated against the claimant in that case only. When the applicant in Tribunal file 2011-08282-I amends the Application, the applicant may also include the amendments she seeks to make with respect to reprisal.
Within 21 days of receiving each applicant’s amended Application, the respondents shall file their Response to the amended Application with the Tribunal.
At this stage, the Applications will be processed separately by the Tribunal.
19I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of October, 2011.
“Signed by”
Sheri D. Price
Vice-chair