Lloy v. Meikle, 2013 HRTO 276

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Lloy

Applicant

-and-

Diane Meikle

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 276

Indexed as: Lloy v. Meikle

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

James Lloy, Applicant

Self-represented

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to adjourn the upcoming summary hearing scheduled for February 20, 2013. For the reasons discussed below, the request is denied.

2In a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) dated February 15, 2013, the applicant requests to amend his Application to include another respondent and to adjourn the upcoming summary hearing in order that his request to add the respondent can first be heard.

3Given the lateness of this request, the named respondent has not had an opportunity to file a Response to the Request for Order. The Tribunal, however, does not need to hear from the respondent on the adjournment issue. In the event that the Application is not dismissed at the summary hearing, the respondent and the proposed respondent will be given an opportunity to file a Response, but at this point, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to deal with the applicant’s last-minute Request to amend.

4This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondent was duty counsel whom the applicant consulted when attending court on family law matters. The proposed respondent is the current respondent’s employer. The applicant submits that without the addition of that respondent, he could be deprived of a full remedy in his matter.

5However, the purpose of the summary hearing is not to determine issues of liability and remedy (if appropriate). I will not be hearing evidence and not be making findings of fact at the summary hearing on February 20, 2013. As per my Case Assessment Direction dated October 5, 2012, the Tribunal will hear argument on two issues:

1. Whether the allegations in the Application, if true, might reasonably be considered to amount to a Code violation.

2. Whether the substance of the applicant’s allegations were appropriately dealt with, in whole or in part, by the October 7, 2011 settlement of the applicant’s motion filed in Superior Court on June 22, 2011.

6Following oral argument by the parties on February 20, 2013, the Tribunal will determine whether the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success with respect to some or all of the allegations in his Application. It may also determine whether some or all of the allegations should be dismissed as an abuse of the Tribunal’s process or because another proceeding has dealt with the substance of the Application.

7As a result of the summary hearing, the Tribunal could dismiss the entire Application or a portion of the Application. If it dismisses the entire Application, the question of whether the respondent’s employer should be added as a party is, of course, moot. In the event that the Tribunal does not dismiss the entire Application, the applicant may wish to then pursue his Request to amend his Application to add Ms. Meikle’s employer.

8The only apparent basis of the applicant’s request for an adjournment is to ensure that he able to successfully bring his Request to add the respondent. In light of the above comments, the adjournment is unnecessary. It is, accordingly, denied.