HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
R.D. as represented by her Litigation Guardian L.D.
Applicant
-and-
District School Board of Niagara
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: R.D. v. District School Board of Niagara
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
District School Board of Niagara, Respondent
Brenda Stokes Verworn, Counsel
Introduction
1This Decision addresses the issue of whether this Application should be dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) or due to the signing of a full and final release.
2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her by refusing to allow an uncertified service dog to attend school with her. In addition to filing her Application, the applicant filed a statement of claim in small claims court in which she made the same allegations as in her Application.
3In its Response, the respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 34(11) of the Code due to the parallel civil claim. It also requested dismissal due to the fact that the parties have entered into a settlement of the matter and the applicant has signed a full and final release releasing the respondent from liability for all claims, specifically including claims made in her Application.
4By letter dated July 24, 2014, the Tribunal advised the applicant of the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application and requested a response from her. She did not respond.
REQUEST TO DISMISS
5Section 34(11) of the Code states:
A person who believes that one of his or her rights under Part I has been infringed may not make an application under subsection (1) with respect to that right if,
(a) a civil proceeding has been commenced in a court in which the person is seeking an order under section 46.1 with respect to the alleged infringement and the proceeding has not been finally determined or withdrawn; or
(b) a court has finally determined the issue of whether the right has been infringed or the matter has been settled.
6I find that the applicant raised substantially the same facts and issues in her civil claim and in her Application. For this reason, the Application is barred by s. 34(11) of the Code. The fact that the applicant signed a full and final release specifically releasing the respondents from liability in this Application further supports the dismissal of the Application.
order
7The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2014.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair