HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
T.B. and J.B.S. and M.S.B. by their next friend T.B.
Applicants
-and-
Halton District School Board and Halton Student Transportation Services
Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed As: T.B. v. Halton District School Board
1This Interim Decision responds to the respondents’ correspondence with the Tribunal received after business hours on February 25, 2013, regarding an interim Order made in Tribunal Decision 2013 HRTO 304 issued on February 22, 2013.
2The respondent seeks what is characterized as a clarification of the Tribunal’s Interim Order which provided as follows:
Commencing on or before February 27, 2013, the respondents shall ensure that the bus stops in front of the applicants’ residential complex or at the nearby intersection identified by the applicant to transport J. and M. to school. The respondents shall ensure that M. is re-registered in the same school to which she was admitted in September and granted a courtesy seat on the bus from the home school.
3The respondents state that in order to minimize the impact on other students and their parents on the existing bus routes, they are prepared to provide alternate bussing for the applicant’s children with a bus stop either in front of the applicant’s complex or at the nearby intersection. The respondent further states that changes to existing bus routes impacts on all existing riders and should be minimized where possible.
4The applicants have responded to the respondents’ request and are opposed to it for a number of reasons which I will not articulate here.
5In my view the respondents are seeking not a clarification of the Interim Order but a variation of it. While it is entirely appropriate for the parties to work out alternative arrangements in furtherance of an order where they are able to do so, I am not satisfied that there is a sufficient basis provided by the respondents to vary the Interim Order as requested. I note that the issue of the potential impact of the kind of order being sought by the applicants was raised before the Associate Chair. The Associate Chair noted at paragraph 25 of the Interim Decision that the respondents “speculate that there may be confusion and safety issues” if the applicant’s request were granted which outweighed the harm to the applicants. The Associate Chair rejected this submission.
6In my view the issue raised by the respondents has been adjudicated and determined largely because the respondents tendered no evidence to support their concerns. In making this request for a variation of the Interim Order, the respondents again offer no evidence of any harm to the other students and parents using the bus. I also note that the Interim Order must be complied with before tomorrow. Time is of the essence, particularly for the respondents who must communicate whatever changes are required to the bus schedule. In my view it would be inappropriate to vary the order at this time in all of these circumstances.
7I am not seized of these Applications.
Dated at Toronto, this 26^th^ day of February, 2013.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair