Jacobsen v. Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2012 HRTO 868

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marianne Jacobsen

Applicant

-and-

Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 2, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 868

Indexed as: Jacobsen v. Centennial College of Applied Arts and Technology

wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Marianne Jacobsen, Applicant ) Self-represented

Centennial College of Applied Arts )

and Technology, Respondent ) Erin M. Miller, Counsel )

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 in the provision of services on the basis of disability

2The respondent has filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) seeking the following relief:

a. An Order that the applicant comply with Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure;

b. An Order that the applicant immediately cease sending, forwarding, copying, or providing in any way, documents, or information with respect to those documents, that have been or will be provided to the Applicant in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules to Leanne Jackson, any other employee or representative of the Ontario Ombudsman;

c. An Order that the applicant not provide any documents or information received in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules to any other third parties at any time, including following the conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

3The respondent also reserved the right to file a Request that the Application be dismissed as an abuse of process should the applicant not comply with any of the orders sought or otherwise violate Rule 3.3

4The applicant filed a Response to the Request. The applicant concedes that she has violated Rule 3.3 but states that it was done out of ignorance of the Rule and its meaning. The applicant is self-represented.

5I agree with the respondent that the conduct of the applicant was inappropriate and in violation of the Rule 3.3. I also agree that the type of relief sought may be appropriate in some circumstances. I find however that no Order is required at this time. The applicant has acknowledged that she was unwittingly in violation of the Rule and has indicated that she intends to comply.

6Should the applicant not continue to comply with the Rule the respondent may file a further Request for all of the relief sought here.

7I am not seized.