C.B. v. Toronto District School Board, 2013 HRTO 706

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.B. by his Next Friend P.B.

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Elizabetta De Santis and

Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: April 29, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 706

Indexed as: C.B. v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Toronto District School Board, Respondent ) Grant Bowers, Counsel

1On February 1, 2013, the applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on behalf of his minor son, alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability.

2The Application is filed against the individual respondent, Elizabetta De Santis, who is a teacher with the respondent Toronto District School Board and the teacher’s union, the respondent Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

3Form 1 of the Application notes that the applicant is seeking that the Tribunal defer the Application pending the completion of a disciplinary proceeding before the Ontario College of Teachers.

4On March 7, 2013, the Tribunal mailed the Notice of Application and deferral notice to all respondents. The Application intended for the individual respondent was forwarded by the Tribunal to the address of the respondent School Board as provided by the applicant.

5On March 22, 2013, the organizational respondent School Board wrote to the Tribunal advising that, while the School Board employs the individual respondent, it is not representing the individual respondent and will not accept service on behalf of the individual respondent. Counsel suggested that the Tribunal enquire with the respondent Teachers’ Federation as to whether or not they would accept service on behalf of the individual respondent. On April 5, 2012, the respondent School Board filed submissions with respect to the issue of deferral and delivered a copy of its deferral submissions intended for the individual respondent to the respondent Teachers’ Federation.

6On April 12, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) requiring the respondent School Board and respondent Teachers’ Federation to provide the Tribunal with the last known contact information for the individual respondent. Specifically, the Tribunal directed both organizational respondents to provide the Tribunal, copied to the applicant and the individual respondent, with the last known address of the individual respondent within 7 days of the date of the CAD.

7On April 17, 2013, counsel for the respondent School Board wrote to the Tribunal, also on behalf of counsel for the respondent Teachers’ Federation, indicating that the respondents may be in conflict with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 (“MFIPPA”) if they comply with the Tribunal’s direction to provide the individual respondent’s address. The respondents submit that they are “uncertain as to the authority which grants the Tribunal’s CAD the power to supersede MIFFPA”. The respondents request that the Tribunal provide them with the “specific authority” prior to the respondents’ compliance with the CAD.

8On April 23, 2013, the respondent School Board forwarded the Notice of Application, deferral notice, the School Board’s submissions and the CAD to the individual respondent. The copy of the cover letter accompanying these materials which was provided to the Tribunal redacted the individual respondent’s address.

9Counsels for the respondents appear to question the Tribunal’s authority to require the disclosure of the individual respondent’s address on the basis that the respondents may potentially be prevented from disclosing such personal information under the MFIPPA. However, the respondents have not filed any specific request for an order regarding their obligations nor indicated what provisions of the MFIPPA they rely upon in support of their positions.

10As counsel for the respondents are no doubt aware, the Tribunal has the authority pursuant to s.5.4 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S.22, to order a party to disclose information at any stage of the proceeding. The Code expressly provides the Tribunal with the power to order a party to a proceeding or another person to “produce any document, information, or thing”: ss. 43(3)(i). Rule 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure state that in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter, the Tribunal may:

i) make or cause to be made any examination of records or other inquiries, as it considers necessary;

p) require a party or other person to produce any document, information or thing and to provide such assistance as is reasonably necessary, including using any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system, to produce the information in any form.

The Tribunal recently discussed these provisions in Dewdney v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 2212 and ordered disclosure of information that was arguably protected by privacy legislation for the purposes of a Tribunal proceeding pursuant to its power to control its process.

11On the basis of the foregoing provisions, and in the absence of any requests for orders or submissions with respect to the provisions of the MFIPPA, I order the respondents to comply with the CAD and provide the Tribunal, copied to the applicant and the individual respondent, with the last known address of the individual respondent within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

12I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of April, 2013.

”signed by”

Ena Chadha

Vice-chair