E.G. v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 HRTO 974

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

E.G. by his litigation guardian S.G. Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: July 3, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 974 Indexed as: E.G. v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

E.G., Applicant S.G., Litigation Guardian

Toronto District School Board, Respondent Brenda Bowlby, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant’s litigation guardian has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) in which she seeks orders that: the respondent explain how it came into possession of a “document that seems to contravene privacy statutes” and the Education Act; the respondent provide disclosure of all other arguably relevant documents; the respondent “take action to immediately rectify any privacy contraventions” and; an extension of the time allotted for her to provide a Reply to the respondent’s Response.

2The respondent has filed a Response to the RFOP. It denies that it has contravened legislation relating to the use of the documents referred to by the applicant’s litigation guardian, and takes the position that in any event, there is no basis in law for the applicant’s request for orders regarding its possession and use of that documentation. Additionally, it submits that there is no basis under the Code or the Tribunal’s Rules to order disclosure of documents at this point. Finally, it objects to the applicant’s request for an extension of time allotted for her to provide a Reply to its Response.

3The applicant’s litigation guardian has now filed her Reply with the Tribunal.

DECISION

4It is not the role of this Tribunal, without more, to enforce compliance with privacy legislation and the Education Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal makes no order with regard to the respondent’s possession of or use of the documentation to which the applicant’s litigation guardian refers, when she alleges it breached that legislation.

5The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide deadlines which govern the exchange and production of documents, and these deadlines will be stated for the parties’ convenience in the Tribunal’s Confirmation of Hearing. The applicant’s litigation guardian’s request for an order of production of arguably relevant documents is premature and her request is dismissed at this time.

6I am not seized.