Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
R.H.
Applicant
-and-
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
Respondent
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: June 25, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1241 Indexed as: R.H v. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
Written Submissions
Robert Hooey, Applicant Self-represented
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Respondent Brenda Bowlby, 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”). The applicant is the father of a student who attended the respondent school. The applicant alleges that the respondent distinguished between him and his ex-partner, the student’s mother, on the basis of sex and he makes some allegations related to his disability.
2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for accommodation and the respondent’s Request for an Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated June 14, 2012. A hearing has been scheduled in this matter for July 31, 2012.
Accommodation Request
3The applicant has requested that the hearing be held in a location other than Toronto or one of the Tribunal’s hearing centres in order to accommodate his physical disability. He submits this disability makes it difficult for him to travel including travelling by public transportation which, he states, he would have to do in order to attend a hearing in Toronto.
4The respondent filed a response to this request for accommodation stating that it did not take a position in regards to the applicant’s request. The respondent did note the increased costs for the respondent if the hearing was not held in Toronto and that the Tribunal does not readily hold hearings outside of its designated hearing centres. The Tribunal has received further submissions from the applicant reiterating his request.
5This is to communicate that the Tribunal will hold the hearing in the location requested by the applicant as an accommodation. A revised Notice of Hearing will be issued to the parties.
The Respondent's Request for an Order During Proceedings
6The respondent’s RFOP requests that the applicant provide all documents related to his involvement with the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) and any Court Orders or Agreements arising from the involvement of the CAS, including all documents in his possession and copies of documents from the CAS which the applicant has the ability to obtain under a request for information. The applicant has not responded to this request.
7In considering the respondent’s RFOP it is relevant to note that it is difficult to understand the precise nature of the applicant’s allegations. In an Interim Decision dated October 29, 2011, 2010 HRTO 2174, the Tribunal stated that it could not determine the nature of the allegations contained in the Application and directed the applicant to produce a revised statement of fact. In an Interim Decision dated January 18, 2012, 2012 HRTO 141, the Tribunal stated that the revised statement of fact was written in a way that made it difficult to make out the nature of the allegations against the respondent.
8In its January 18, 2012 Interim Decision the Tribunal identified 16 allegations and went on to dismiss eight of these allegations for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal now directs that a one day hearing be scheduled to consider the remaining eight allegations. These are:
a. A superintendent stated that he did not have time for the applicant’s son;
The respondent contacted the Children’s Aid Society to report the applicant, stating that the applicant had “mental problems.” It did not, however, report the applicant’s ex-partner;
The applicant was barred from attending his son’s school because he allegedly scared female (but not male) staff;
An individual at the school did not provide the applicant with the name of an individual who had helped him in the past. The applicant alleges this in reprisal to his filing the Application;
The respondent assumed based on the applicant’s physical disability that he also has a mental disability;
The respondent has not responded to the applicant’s concerns because the applicant appears to be “dopey” when in fact he is taking medication for a number of health-related issues. The applicant states that his ex-partner receives better treatment from the respondent;
The respondent invites the applicant to events on school property even though he is not permitted to enter school property;
A counsellor employed by the respondent recommended a meeting between the applicant and his ex-partner, even though there is a peace bond preventing contact between them. The counsellor became angry when she learned of the peace bond;
The respondent or an employee of the respondent alleged that the applicant made a “disgusting comment” and, as I understand it, that he made lewd gestures.
9The respondent filed its Response following the Tribunal’s January 18, 2012 Interim Decision.
10In its response the respondent acknowledges that in April 2008 the acting principal in the school attended by the applicant’s child called the CAS. It submits that the principal had become concerned about what appeared to be serious mental health issues on the part of the applicant and the impact his behaviours may have on his child. The respondent submits that the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. 11, as amended requires professionals including teachers to report if they suspect that a child may be in need of protection.
11The respondent submits that following this reporting, the CAS investigated and concluded that the emotional well-being of the applicant’s son was “being negatively impacted by being caught in the middle of a conflict between his parents.” The respondent submits that the parents were obliged to sign a contract which required the applicant to refrain from exposing his child to the conflict between his parents and was required to take his child to counselling.
12The respondent submits that the applicant subsequently became angry at the respondent for its role in contacting the CAS and repeatedly acted in a hostile manner during the period that gave rise to a number of the applicant’s other allegations and that eventually led to the respondent issuing the applicant with a no trespass letter.
Decision
13The standard for disclosure in a human rights proceeding is “arguable relevance.” It has been stated that this is not a particularly high bar. However there must be some relevance and the party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and issues in dispute before the Tribunal: Neusch v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) (2002), 2002 CanLII 46508 (ON HRT), 43 C.H.R.R. D/171 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), at para. 38.
14I find that documents related to the applicant’s involvement with the CAS from the date of the report made by the principal in April 2008 to the date of the filing of the Application on April 7, 2010 and any Court Orders or Agreements arising from this involvement of the CAS are arguably relevant and must be immediately disclosed by the applicant. They are arguably relevant in that they may provide information that is relevant to the applicant’s relationship with his child, his ex-partner and the respondent and that relates to one or more of the applicant’s allegations. If these documents are not in the applicant’s possession he is directed to make reasonable efforts to obtain these documents including those in the possession of the CAS that he has the legal right to obtain. If the applicant cannot produce the documents because of a court order, he should identify the document and indicate why he cannot produce the document.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of June, 2012.
Signed by
Eric Whist
Vice-chair