Stewart v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2014 HRTO 1417

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gary Stewart

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 24, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1417

Indexed As: Stewart v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gary Stewart, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent

Marnie Corbold, Counsel

1The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking to amend his Application. The respondent has filed a Response to this Request (Form 11) objecting to the amendments on the basis that they are unnecessary or insufficiently particularized.

2In a July 2, 2014 Case Assessment Direction, the applicant was specifically directed to “provide particulars with respect to when (time and date if known) he alleges he was subjected to racial taunts, and which staff members this occurred in front of (if known or other identifying characteristics if not).” The applicant provided a lengthy set of particulars concerning the problems he alleges he had receiving a proper diet at the respondent’s facilities, which the Tribunal did not direct him to do. On p. 9 of his written submissions, he included particulars with respect to only one incident of alleged racism against the respondent.

Decision and analysis

3The respondent submits that many of the proposed amendments in the Request concerning the applicant’s dietary issues can already be found in the narrative to the Application or are unattributed opinions of others. It is true that these proposed amendments are of only limited assistance to the respondent and Tribunal in understanding the applicant’s case, but to the extent they make manifest, allegations that are otherwise unclear, I will permit them.

4The allegation found in the Request to amend, about the applicant being subjected to “daily” racial taunts and threats, is more problematic in that it implies that this was also witnessed by staff of the respondent on a daily basis. In fact, the applicant clarified in his submissions to my Case Assessment Direction that on one occasion in the two-week period prior to November 22, 2013, staff at the respondent correctional facility allegedly witnessed and did nothing about such taunts/threats. In the interest of fairness to the parties, the particulars, as they appear on p. 9 of the applicant’s July 8, 2014 submissions, should be included to clarify the applicant’s allegation as found in his Request.

ORDER

5The Tribunal makes the following orders/directions:

a. The applicant’s Request to amend his Application, dated May 22, 2014, is allowed, with the inclusion of the clarification found at p. 9 of the applicant’s July 8, 2014 written submissions;

b. Any other new allegations found in the applicant’s written submissions are not part of the amended Application, and the Tribunal will not consider them until such time as the applicant files a further Request to amend; and

c. Paragraphs 8-13 of the respondent’s August 29, 2014 written submissions will be considered part of its amended Response to the amended Application, but it may file further amendments in response to the amended Application within three weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.