Patricia Ann Naughton v. University of Western Ontario, 2012 HRTO 1357

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Patricia Ann Naughton Applicant

-and-

University of Western Ontario Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: July 9, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1357 Indexed as: Naughton v. University of Western Ontario

Written Submissions

Patricia Naughton, Applicant Self-represented

University of Western Ontario, Respondent Lisa Kwasek, 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 services because of disability. In their Response, the named respondents requested that the Application be dismissed because another proceeding has in whole or in part appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The applicant filed a Reply opposing this request.

2In addition, the respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking the Tribunal to remove the individual respondents from the Application. The applicant filed a Response to a Request for Order (Form 11) consenting to the removal. The Tribunal discourages the practice of unnecessarily naming individual respondents and notes that the applicant’s consent to their removal is entirely appropriate.

3With respect to the request to dismiss, the Tribunal notes that it appears that the substance of the Application may have been appropriately dealt with, in whole or in part, by her appeal to the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, in the decision dated May 17, 2011. Section 45.1 of the Code, reads as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

4The parties may wish to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, and the Tribunal’s decisions in Gomez v. Sobeys Milton Retail Support Centre, 2011 HRTO 2297, and Rao v. McMaster University, 2010 HRTO 1051.

5The Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing by teleconference. The applicant will proceed first. The parties shall make argument about whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code. No witnesses will give evidence during the hearing.

Order

6In sum, the Tribunal has made the follow order and directions:

a. The following individual respondents are removed as parties to this Application: Nick Dyer-Witheford, Thomas Carmichael, Rosanne Greene, and Steven Sims;

b. The Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing by teleconference to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, under s. 45.1;

c. The applicant will proceed first at this teleconference hearing;

d. No witnesses will give evidence during this teleconference hearing.