Surgenor v. St. Lawrence College, 2012 HRTO 206

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gavin Surgenor

Applicant

-and-

St. Lawrence College Kingston

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 27, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 206

Indexed as: Surgenor v. St. Lawrence College

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy and a jurisdictional issue arising from the applicant’s revised Application.

2The applicant filed this Application on May 24, 2011 alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability and sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) was sent to him on July 21, 2011, to which he responded.

3On September 20, 2011, I issued an Interim Decision in which I dismissed against three of the four named respondents. Prior to serving the Application on the remaining respondent, St. Lawrence College, I directed the applicant to provide further particulars in the form of a revised answer to section 8 of his Application. The applicant complied with this direction on December 17, 2011. However, many of the allegations in the revised section 8 appear to be against entities other than the respondent.

REQUEST FOR INTERIM REMEDY

4On January 8, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy (Form 16). The Request for Interim Remedy was not supported by a signed declaration, as required by Rule 23.3(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and on this basis alone must fail. Moreover, the description of the relief sought includes relief against the Kingston Police, which has been removed as a respondent. Finally, with respect to the facts in support of his Request, the applicant answers as follows: “Various documents filed with tribunal registrar by e-mail.”

5Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, states:

23.2 The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

6The applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy does not contain sufficient information on which such a request could be granted. There is insufficient information to determine whether this Application even has merit, let alone whether the balance of harm or convenience favours the granting of the remedy.

7In the circumstances, the Request for Interim Remedy is denied.

JURISDICTION

8As noted above, the applicant was directed to provide an amended answer to question 8 (“What happened?”) in his Application. The applicant complied with this direction on December 17, 2011, but included in it allegations against Alex Ungar, Joshua Shallenberger and Jeremy Schallenberger. None of these individuals are identified as individual respondents nor do they appear to have any connection to the respondent College. The applicant also includes allegations against the Kingston Police Force, which has been removed as a respondent.

9The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over allegations concerning persons or entities who are not parties to this Application. Accordingly, these allegations are dismissed.

10The remaining allegations include the alleged interactions between Dwight Dueck and the applicant between December 2010 and April 2011, the alleged incident taking place in Stephen Moore’s class on December 7, 2010 and the alleged refusal of the respondent to allow the applicant to return to campus until he commenced and/or resumed taking anti-psychotic medication.

11The Application, including the revised answer to question 8, will be served on the respondent, which is asked to provide a Response. The applicant is directed to Rule 9.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, which states:

An Applicant who intends to prove a version of the facts different from those set out in a Response must deliver and file a Reply in Form 3 setting out the different version, unless it is already contained in the Application. An Applicant may also reply to any other matter raised in the Response.

12I am not seized of this matter.