McCarthy v. Hamilton (City), 2012 HRTO 1038

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Barbara McCarthy

Applicant

-and-

The City of Hamilton

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 24, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1038

Indexed as: McCarthy v. Hamilton (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Barbara McCarthy, Applicant

Self-represented

Disabled and Aged Transport System, Respondent

Jane M. Gooding, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.

2This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceeding filed by the respondent Disabled and Aged Regional Transport System (DARTS) seeking an Order removing them from the Application as there are no allegations made against them that engage any Code grounds. DARTS advises that the respondent City of Hamilton (the "City") has consented to the Order sought. The applicant does not and submits that the parties should attend mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter.

3In her Application the applicant identified Darts as the only respondent. The applicant alleges that her right to be free of discrimination in services was infringed by DARTS when she was denied access to their transportation. The applicant states that she is legally blind.

4In their Response Darts identified the Accessible Transit Services of the City as the proper respondent. DARTS states that they contract with the City to provide transportation services for persons with certain kinds of disabilities. The eligibility criteria for access to the services they offer are determined by the City and applications for access are approved, or not, by the City. DARTS states that they are merely the service provider and play no role in the determinations complained of by the applicant.

5The City filed a Response to the Application. In its response the City acknowledges that it establishes the eligibility criteria for the services it contracts to DARTS and that it, not DARTS, approves, or not, applications from citizens for access to those service. As noted above the City consents to the removal of DARTS as a respondent.

6In my view DARTS is not a proper respondent and should be removed from the Application. It is clear from the material filed that DARTS played no role in the alleged discriminatory actions here. It makes no decisions in respect of who is eligible for access to the services it contracts with the City to provide. It does not approve, or not, applications to use of those services. Those decisions are made by the City and its employees in Accessible Transport Services. The applicant's concerns are with the City and not with DARTS. The applicant does not take issue with the assertions of DARTS or the City as they relate to this issue. In my view there are no allegations made against DARTS which raise any Code related issues. The Tribunal's powers are limited to considering allegations of Code violations. Where there are none the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

7For all of the reasons DART should be removed from the Application and the style of cause amended accordingly.

8I am not seized.