HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christopher Karas
Applicant
-and-
École secondaire catholique Sainte-Famille and Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Karas v. École secondaire catholique Sainte-Famille
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
École secondaire catholique Sainte-Famille and Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, Respondents
R. Paul Marshall, Counsel
Justice for Children and Youth, Proposed Intervenor
Andrea Luey, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to educational services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On November 12, 2014, the Justice for Children and Youth (“JCY”) filed a Request to intervene seeking full participatory rights.
3On December 8, 2014, the respondents filed a Form 11, opposing the Request to intervene on a number of grounds.
4The applicant, who is represented by counsel, has filed no submissions with respect to the Request to intervene.
INTERVENTION
5Rule 11.1 states:
11.1 The Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine. The Tribunal will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding.
6In D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1187, the Tribunal states at para 12:
In accordance with Rule 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine. Tribunal jurisprudence has articulated a number of factors for consideration in assessing a request for intervention:
i. Whether the intervenor has a significant interest or special contribution to make on the issues;
ii. Whether the intervenor is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that will not otherwise be provided;
iii. Whether the intervention will unduly delay, disrupt or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties; and
iv. If intervention is appropriate, are there conditions that should be placed on the intervention.
See for example, Jeppesen v. Ancaster (Town) Fire & Emergency Services 2001 CanLII 26209 (ON HRT), 2001 CanLII 26209 (ON H.R.T.) and Forrester v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Service Board, 2005 HRTO 3.
7In Carasco v. University of Windsor, 2011 HRTO 630, the Tribunal found that the decision to grant an intervention request is discretionary.
8Having considered the matter I decline to grant JCY intervenor status.
9Firstly, the applicant is represented by counsel in this matter. Secondly, the majority of the allegations involve the applicant’s direct interactions with the respondents and do not involve the systemic issues raised by JCY. As such I do not agree that the proposed intervenor has significant interest or can make significant contributions in this matter. Thirdly, I am not satisfied that JCY can be of assistance to the Tribunal. The issues raised in the Application fall squarely within the Tribunal’s expertise, including issues relating to responding and addressing human rights violations.
10In these circumstances, JCY’s Request to intervene is denied.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of February, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair