Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Antonia Balloi Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: December 5, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2176 Indexed as: Balloi v. Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities)
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceeding (Form 10) to remove the individually named respondents and seeking production of documents from the respondent.
REMOVAL OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
2The applicant filed her Application on August 29, 2011 alleging discrimination in services (education) on the basis of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.10, as amended (the “Code”). In that Application, she names three individual respondents. In their Response, the named respondents indicated that these persons appeared to be acting in their capacity as employees of the Ministry and not in their personal capacity.
3The applicant filed a Request for Order in which she indicated that she no longer wished to proceed against the individual respondents and sought their removal. She indicated in this Request that counsel for the respondents consented to this request. The respondents have filed no Response to the Request.
4There is no compelling reason on the face of the Application for continuing against these individuals. In light of the applicant’s wishes and the respondents’ apparent consent, the Tribunal orders the removal of the following persons as parties to this proceeding: Sherri Martin, David Speicher and Kaithy Wu.
5The style of cause is amended accordingly. The applicant appears to be somewhat confused as to how to name the respondent. She is advised to name Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and not its counsel as the party to this proceeding.
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
6The applicant filed her Request for production on October 27, 2011, seeking extensive documentary production from the respondent. The respondent did not file a Response to the Request for Order (Form 11) and the time for so doing has now expired.
7Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s current Rules of Procedure set out rules for the disclosure and production of documents by the parties. This Rule is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet happened in this case. Indeed, the parties have expressed an interest in participating in mediation and that will take place first. Only if the matter does not settle at mediation will the Application be set down for hearing.
8Under the new Rules, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but only in exceptional circumstances, such as where a respondent is unable to file a Response or the applicant is not able to ascertain the identity or contact information for a proposed respondent.
9The applicant has not identified any exceptional circumstances in this case. The applicant’s request for production at this stage is denied as premature.
CONSOLIDATION
10This Application appears to be very much related to the Application 2011-09628-I, which is against Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning. The parties are directed to advise the Tribunal their position on the consolidation of this file with the above Application within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.
ORDER
11In sum, I have issued the following orders/directions:
a. The Tribunal orders the removal of the following persons as parties to this proceeding: Sherri Martin, David Speicher and Kaithy Wu;
b. The Tribunal dismisses the applicant’s Request for production of documents as premature; and
c. The Tribunal directs the parties to advise it of their position on consolidation of this Application with Application 2011-09628-I.
12I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of December, 2011.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend Vice-chair