Bondar v. Ontario (Northern Development and Mines), 2013 HRTO 366

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bradley Bondar

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: March 4, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 366 Indexed as: Bondar v. Ontario (Northern Development and Mines)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Bradley Bondar, Applicant

Aaron Mintz, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability. The original Application alleged that the announcement by the provincial government to discontinue passenger train service in the North of Ontario was a contravention of the Code because travelling by bus is inaccessible to the applicant. At a Summary Hearing, the applicant had newly retained counsel who requested to amend the Application to make clear that the announcement of discontinuing train travel was not the focus of the allegations; rather, the focus of the allegations is on whether bus travel is accessible.

2Following the Summary Hearing, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision dated November 8, 2012 which allowed the applicant to amend his Application in order to include the allegations described at the Summary Hearing. On December 6, 2012, the applicant filed an amended Application pursuant to that Interim Decision.

3Also on December 6, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, seeking to add the bus company as a respondent.

4The original respondent, as well as the respondent the applicant is seeking to add (Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, “ONTC”), filed a Response on January 17, 2013. The Response indicates that it is made “on behalf of both respondents.” Neither the respondent nor ONTC filed a Response to the applicant’s Request.

5This Interim Decision deals with the Request and provides direction for the next step.

ANALYSIS

6Rule 1.7(b) 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 add a party. In Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513 (“Smyth”), the Tribunal articulated three issues for consideration when deciding whether or not to add a respondent party:

(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

7The allegations that the bus service offered by ONTC is not accessible to the applicant could support a finding that it violated and continues to violate the Code. ONTC appears to agree that it is responsible for the bus service, and therefore there is a compelling reason to add it as a respondent. In the context of there not appearing to be any objection by the original respondent or ONTC, it would be fair to grant the Request.

DECISION

8I grant the applicant’s Request to add ONTC as a respondent.

DIRECTIONS

9The respondents are directed to confirm immediately with the Tribunal and the applicant whether they are interested in attempting to resolve the Application through mediation. The applicant has already indicated his willingness.

10I am not seized.