Wong v. York Catholic School Board, 2015 HRTO 1115

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brandon Wong by his Litigation Guardian Li-Ching Wong

Applicant

-and-

York Catholic District School Board, Zita Van Oosten, Doreen Hayes and Kimberly Rose

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2331

Intervenor

­_____

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: August 21, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1115

Indexed as: Wong v. York Catholic School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Brandon Wong represented by his Litigation Guardian Li-Ching Wong, Applicant

Kelley Bryan, Counsel

Kimberly Rose, Respondent

John McLuckie, Counsel

Doreen Hayes and Zita Van Oosten, Respondents

Jerry Raso, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses a request by the respondent Kimberly Rose (“K.R.”) for a Summary Hearing.

2This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

3On July 13, 2015, K.R. filed a Request for a Summary Hearing. The applicant opposes the request. The respondents, Zita Van Oosten and Doreen Hayes, take no position on the request.

4Under Rules 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision to hold or not to hold a summary hearing. In the circumstances of this case, I will simply note that the issues raised by the applicant and respondents may only be resolved after hearing evidence in a hearing on the merits. The Tribunal’s summary hearing process is used to deal with those applications where the allegations may be legally insufficient to constitute a case to be answered. This is not the case here. Summary hearings do not involve the hearing of any evidence. In order to address the respondents’ refutation of the applicant’s allegations, a hearing on the merits must be held. Therefore K.R.’s Request for a Summary Hearing is denied.

order

5For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The Request for a Summary hearing is denied.

b. Since the applicant and the respondents have agreed to mediation, the next step in this case will be for the Tribunal’s Registrar to schedule a mediation.

6I am not seized.