Collin Dolny v. Everest College of Business, Technology and Health Care – Toronto College Park, 2012 HRTO 1684

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Collin Dolny Applicant

-and-

Everest College of Business, Technology and Health Care – Toronto College Park Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: September 6, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1684

Indexed as: Dolny v. Everest College of Business, Technology and Health Care – Toronto College Park

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Collin Dolny, Applicant ) Self-represented

Everest College of Business, Technology ) Thomas Lindell, Representative and Health Care – Toronto College Park , ) Respondent )

Reasons for Decision

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an Interim Remedy.

2On August 13, 2012, the applicant, who is a student at Everest College, filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to services because of his disability. Specifically, he alleged that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability-related needs, and failed to intervene when he was harassed and bullied because of his disability.

3On August 13, 2012, the applicant also filed a Request for an Interim Remedy, which alleged that the respondent denied his recent request for an extension of time to complete a project for a course. As an interim remedy, he requested that the Tribunal order the respondent to immediately accommodate his disability-related needs.

4On August 27, 2012, the respondent filed a Response to the applicant’s Request for an Interim Remedy, which stated that after the applicant filed his Request, the respondent granting him the extension of time that he had requested to complete a project for a course. The respondent stated that the applicant has acknowledged in writing that the respondent has now granted his request. The respondent attached documents to its Response, which appear to support its position.

5Between August 29 and September 1, 2012, the applicant sent three e-mails to the Tribunal, which did not deny the accuracy of the respondent’s Response to his Request for an Interim Remedy, but stated that the Statement of Delivery (Form 23) which the respondent filed on August 27, 2012 is fraudulent because he did not receive the Response until August 30, 2012.

6The applicant’s Request for an Interim Remedy is dismissed. Based on the materials before me, I am satisfied that the applicant’s Request for an Interim Remedy is moot.

7The Tribunal directs the respondent to ensure that it delivers documents to the applicant in compliance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

8I am not seized of this matter.