Moroz v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 120

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Moroz Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: January 26, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 120

Indexed as: Moroz v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

William Moroz, Applicant

Richard Miller, Counsel

Toronto District School Board., Respondent

Wendy Lopez, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s Request for a Summary Hearing and the applicant’s request to add the ground of disability to his Application.

2In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of age and reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

Request for Summary Hearing

3On October 2, 2014, the respondent filed a Request for a Summary Hearing. The applicant opposed this request.

4Under Rule 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 respondent 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. That is not the case here. Summary hearings do not involve the hearing of any evidence. In order to address the respondent’s refutation of the applicant’s allegations, a hearing on the merits must be held. Therefore, the respondents’ Request for Summary Hearing is denied.

Request to Amend Application

5By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the applicant requested to amend the Application to include the ground of disability. The respondent consents to the amendment. However, the respondent takes issue with the disability identified by the applicant. According to the respondent, the applicant did not refer to having a heart condition in his Application but instead referred to stress/anxiety. I note that in s. 9 of his Application, the applicant does refer to a heart condition that was exacerbated by stress and anxiety. In my view, any issues surrounding the nature of the applicant’s disability and any required accommodations can be dealt with through the calling of evidence at the hearing.

Order

6For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The respondent’s Request for a Summary Hearing is denied.

b. The applicant’s request to amend the Application to add disability as a ground of discrimination is granted on consent. The respondent’s Response is amended to add paragraphs 15-24 contained in the respondent’s Response to the applicant’s RFOP filed on January 15, 2015.

c. Since the respondent has not agreed to mediation, the next step in this case will be for the Tribunal’s Registrar to schedule a hearing.

7I am not seized.