Ryder v. Ryerson University Students Union, 2011 HRTO 202

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donna Ryder

Applicant

-and-

Ryerson University Students Union, Continuing Education Student’s Association of Ryerson, Palin Foundation, Ryerson Student Center/Student Campus Center, Chris McNeil, Denise Hammond, Gilary Massa, Joel Duff, Sean Carson and Toby Whitefield

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 31, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 202

Indexed as: Ryder v. Ryerson University Students Union

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donna Ann Ryder, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 26, 2010, which alleges that five organizational respondents and 17 individual respondents discriminated against her with respect to services, goods and facilities and employment on the basis of disability, age, association and reprisal.

2On November 12, 2010, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) indicating that her allegation of discrimination on the basis of reprisal appeared to outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In addition, the NOID indicated that the Application as against certain respondents – namely, the Canadian Federation of Students, Jermaine Bagnall, Liana Salvador, Lise De Montbrun, Rodney Diverlus, Caitlin Smith, Alex Kerner, Eric Newstadt, Chris McNeil, Mohammad Ali Aumeer, Daniel Vandervoort, Rick Knapp and Michael Richards – appeared to be outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because there were no allegations against them or, in the case of Mr. Richards, he appeared to be a lawyer for another party in another legal proceeding.

3An application (or portion thereof) will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect to the application (Rule 13.5).

4The applicant filed written submissions on December 12, 2010, in which she states that, with the exception of the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and Chris McNeil, she has no objection to removing the respondents named in the NOID. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed (and the style of cause amended accordingly) as against the following respondents: Jermaine Bagnall, Liana Salvador, Lise De Montbrun, Rodney Diverlus, Caitlin Smith, Alex Kerner, Eric Newstadt, Mohammad Ali Aumeer, Daniel Vandervoort, Rick Knapp and Michael Richards.

5With respect to the CFS, the applicant submits that it is the umbrella organization of student unions, including the Ryerson Student Union. She does not assert, however, any specific acts of discrimination against the CFS over which the Tribunal would have any jurisdiction. It is not appropriate, therefore, to continue the Application as against the CFS, and the Application is dismissed (and the style of cause amended accordingly) as against the Canadian Federation of Students.

6With respect to Chris McNeil, the applicant alleges specific acts of discrimination, including “refusing [her] goods and services” and attempting to “intimidate her from attending the CESAR offices.” It is not plain and obvious at this stage that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as against this individual respondent, and he will remain as respondent at this stage.

7Likewise, it is not plain and obvious that the some of the allegations in the Application could not constitute reprisal for claiming or enforcing a right under the Code. That is, on the face of the allegations, as outlined in the applicant’s submissions, she does state that she experienced negative consequences for asserting her right to equality on the basis of disability. Accordingly, this ground will remain in the Application.

8I am not seized of this matter.