HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeffrey Johnston
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Johnston v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jeffrey Johnston, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy, which was filed with the Tribunal on May 31, 2013.
2The applicant filed this Application on April 29, 2013 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The narrative portion of his Application consists of a 48-page detailed chronology of events dating back to 2003 (although the events prior to 2011 are presented as background only) and continuing to the present. He alleges that the respondent’s actions are preventing him from returning to work.
DEcision
3Rule 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.
23.3 A Request for an Interim Remedy must include:
a) a detailed description of the order sought;
b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies; and,
c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.
4In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, the Tribunal states that interim remedies are extraordinary and are only granted when the applicant is able to demonstrate that such a remedy is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate, and effective remedy at the end of a hearing.
5In this case, the applicant seeks to be placed in another facility away from the environment he alleges is poisoned. He also seeks to have his disabilities accommodated. The applicant points to the fact that he has been out of the workplace since the end of February and without income since early March. In this respect, his Application is not unlike numerous other applications before this Tribunal in which the applicants allege they have been dismissed from, or forced onto unpaid leaves from, their employment because their respective disabilities were not accommodated.
6Should the applicant be successful in this Application, the Tribunal has the authority to order a remedy that would make him whole. He has not articulated a basis on which I can find that the remedy he seeks at this stage (i.e., in advance of the Tribunal considering the merits of his Application) “is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing.”
7In the circumstances, the Request for Interim Remedy is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of June, 2013.
“Signed by” __________________________________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair