HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jared Clough by his litigation guardian, Susan Clough
Applicant
-and-
Simcoe County District School Board
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Jared Clough by his litigation guardian, Susan Clough
Applicant
-and-
Simcoe County District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Clough v. Simcoe County District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jared Clough by his litigation guardian, Susan Clough, Applicant, Self-represented
Simcoe County District School Board, Respondent, Nadya Tymochenko, Counsel
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) to dismiss Application 2012-10727-I as duplicative or, in the alternative, consolidate the above Applications. The applicant filed a Response to the Request for Order opposing dismissing the above-numbered Application, but agreeing to consolidation.
2The applicant is a student with the respondent board. His mother, his litigation guardian, filed a previous Application against the respondent Board on his behalf, which was settled. It is the applicant’s position that the terms of that settlement have been breached and to that end, his litigation guardian has brought an Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 18) on his behalf (2012-10726-I).
3In the alternative, the applicant takes the position that his right to be free from discrimination in services on the basis of disablity has been breached, and his litigation guardian has, accordingly, filed an Application (Form 1) on his behalf (2012-10727-I). Both Applications allege the same facts.
4The respondent’s request to dismiss the latter Application alleging the breach of the applicant’s rights to be free from discrimination is based on the fact that it is duplicative of the former. I have reviewed the Minutes of Settlement on which 2012-10726-I is based, and the terms are sufficiently general that it is not possible to definitively state at the outset whether the alleged actions on the part of the respondent fall within them. It is, therefore, possible that the Tribunal could say at the conclusion of the proceeding, with respect to whatever facts are proven, that the applicant’s Code rights were breached, but not the settlement.
5For this reason, it is not appropriate to dismiss Application 2012-10727-I, but it is appropriate to consolidate and hear the Applications together. Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear Applications together.
6Accordingly, the respondent’s request to dismiss is denied; its request to consolidate Applications 2012-10726-I and 2012-10727-I is granted.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 11th day of May, 2012.
"Signed by"
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair