D.L.T. by his next friend W.T. v. Ontario (Children and Youth Services), 2013 HRTO 548

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

D.L.T. by his next friend W.T.

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Children and Youth Services and Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

Respondents

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: April 4, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 548 Indexed as: D.L.T. by his next friend W.T. v. Ontario (Children and Youth Services)

APPEARANCES

D.L.T. by his next friend W.T., Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Children and Youth Services, Respondent

Mimi Singh and Arif Virani, Counsel

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, Respondent

Jill Scrutton-Fulford, Counsel

Ontario Human Rights Commission, Intervenor

Cathy Pike, Counsel

1The background of this Application and the reasons for granting the applicant’s Request to Expedite are set out in an Interim Decision dated February 13, 2013, reported at 2013 HRTO 264. As directed in that Interim Decision, a case management teleconference was held on March 26, 2013. Prior to the teleconference, Ontario advised the Tribunal and the parties that Ministry funding for services for the applicant had been granted for a year commencing April 1, 2013, and that the Society had agreed to withdraw the child protection application.

2On March 21, 2013, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) filed a Notice of Commission Intervention under Section 37(2) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) with the consent of the applicant. The respondent Minister took the position that notwithstanding the Commission’s right to intervene with consent of the applicant under the Code, it should not be treated as an intervenor in this case since the respondent takes the position that the Application is moot. It argues that if there is no valid application before the Tribunal because of mootness, the Commission has no right to intervene. It also argues that the Commission’s intervention form does not have sufficient detail. I made the following oral ruling during the teleconference:

I find that the Commission is entitled to intervene as of right as a party in this matter pursuant to s. 37(2) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19. This does not depend on whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or whether the application is moot. See Dream Team v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 1691. If I am wrong and the Commission needs leave, I would grant the Commission leave to intervene under the Tribunal’s case law favouring the involvement of groups that have an interest: see CAW – Canada v. Presteve Foods, 2011 HRTO 1581. The scope of the Commission’s involvement will be determined as the matter proceeds. In my view, the Commission should be entitled to make legal submissions on the issue of mootness if and when this issue is addressed.

3Ontario argues that in light of the fact that the child protection proceedings will be terminated and the applicant will have the services he needs for a year, the matter should no longer be expedited. I agree. The order expediting the Application is revoked.

4The parties agreed that the issue of mootness should be dealt with as a preliminary matter and the schedule below was set.

ORDER

5The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is an intervenor as of right in this Application.

2. The Order that the Application be expedited is revoked.

3. Written and oral submissions on the issue of mootness shall proceed as follows:

   a. By May 14, 2013, Ontario and the Society shall make written submissions on the issue of mootness.

   b. By May 28, 2013, the applicant and the Commission shall make written submissions on the issue of mootness.

   c. By June 11, 2013, Ontario and the Society may reply to the arguments of the applicant and the Commission.

   d. The Registrar will schedule a half-day in-person hearing in London on June 25, 2013 to hear argument on mootness.

4. I am not seized of this Application.