HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
D.H. on behalf of T.A.
Applicant
-and-
Eastern Ontario District Catholic School Board, Ontario Ministry of Education, Annie Sicard, Lyne Racine, Norma McDonald, Kevin Gilmore
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Genevieve Debane
Indexed as: D.H. v. Eastern Ontario District Catholic School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
D.H. on behalf of T.A., Applicant
A.B., Representative
Eastern Ontario District Catholic School Board and Lyne Racine, Respondents
Paul Marshall, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination and reprisal with respect to educational services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy seeking to be permitted to return to L’École Secondaire L’Escale (the “School”) effective September 1, 2015.
3T.A. was enrolled at the School from September 16, 2014 until October 14, 2014, when he was advised that he would no longer be enrolled in the School. The Application and Request for Interim remedy was filed on August 24, 2015.
Decision
4The conditions for awarding an interim remedy are set out in Rule 23.2:
The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:
a. the Application appears to have merit;
b. the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested and;
c. it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.
5Normally, the Tribunal’s power to order respondents to do or refrain from doing something is contingent upon a finding that they have violated the Code. Interim remedies are extraordinary in that they constitute an order to do or refrain from doing something in the absence of a finding that the Code has been violated. The fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is whether it is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found. For these reasons, applicants have a significant onus to meet in demonstrating that a Request for Interim Remedy meets the three elements in Rule 23.2. See TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369.
6Even assuming that the Application has merit, I am of the view that it is not appropriate to grant the Interim Remedy. T.A. has not been enrolled at the School since October 14, 2014, over ten months prior to the filing of this Application. The applicant waited one week before the start of classes to file this Application. The only reason that there is any urgency in this case is because the applicant did not file an Application against the Board in a more timely manner.
7In these circumstances, I find that it is not appropriate to grant the Request for Interim Remedy.
8I am not seized of the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of September, 2015.
“Signed By”
Genevieve Debane
Vice-chair
CORRECTION
The Interim Decision released on September 10, 2015 had incorrectly anonymized the minor applicants’ name “T.B” for “T.A”. The error is corrected.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of September, 2015.
“Signed By”
Genevieve Debane
Vice-chair