HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
J.S., as represented by his litigation guardian B.S.
Applicant
-and-
Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board
Respondents
-and-
Dufferin Peel Educational Resource Workers’ Association and
Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association
Intervenors
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eva Nichols
Indexed as: JS v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
J.S., as represented by his litigation guardian B.S., Applicant
David Baker, Counsel
Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, Respondent
Nadya Tymochenko, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “RFOP”) submitted to the Tribunal on July 15, 2016. The applicant wishes to amend the Application, originally submitted on March 30, 2016.
BACKGROUND
2The Application included a request for an interim remedy. The parties participated in mediation on June 27, 2016, which resulted in an interim settlement. On the basis of the signed Minutes of Settlement, the applicant withdrew his request for an interim remedy.
3The parties agreed to a continuation of the mediation in order to attempt to settle the remaining issues, including monetary, non-monetary and public interest remedies.
4In order to plan for the continued mediation, a Case Management teleconference was held with the parties and one of the intervenors on July 11, 2016, to discuss the timing of the continued mediation.
5During the teleconference, the applicant stated the he intended to amend the Application by changing the remedies sought.
6By Case Assessment Direction, dated July 12, 2016, the Tribunal set dates for submissions of the applicant’s revised remedy request and the respondent’s response to the request.
THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST
7As stated above, the applicant sought monetary, non-monetary and public interest remedies in his original Application. In the RFOP, he seeks to amend two of the four non-monetary and public interest remedies only. These two original remedies were as follows:
An order requiring that school boards (Ministry of Education) collaborate with the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to ensure that ABA is available to students with ASD; and
An order permitting J.S.’s IBI therapist to attend classes with him provided it remains necessary until such time that the school is able to implement changes for ABA to be provided by school board employees.
8Regarding the first point above, the applicant relies upon the June 29, 2016 announcement by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services regarding a plan “to enhance autism supports in schools to help children transition to and contribute in full-time school” and asks for a commitment from the respondent to find ways to fund enhanced ABA training for its relevant personnel through its relationship with the Ministry of Education.
9Regarding the second point above, the applicant wishes to set out in detail the ways in which the respondent will train its personnel who are involved in the provision of ABA programming for students such as the applicant. Further, the applicant wishes the respondent to agree to specific detailed steps for programming for the applicant for the 2017-18 school year.
THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION
10The respondent stated that it took no position on the applicant’s request to amend the Application.
11Further, in addition to this overall statement, the respondent also submitted a detailed response to the amended Application.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
12Rule 1.7(c ) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just an expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may allow any filing to be amended.
13In deciding requests to amend Applications, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the potential prejudice, if any, to the respondents. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; N.T. by his next friend D.B. v. Durham District School Board, 2014 HRTO 7; and Edgar Briggs v. Lost and Found and Brandon Briggs v. Lost and Found, 2016 HRTO 245.
14I am satisfied that the applicant should be permitted to amend the Application, as described in the RFOP. My reasons for this are as follows.
15The Tribunal has not yet scheduled a hearing date with regard to the merits of the Application. In fact, two additional mediation days have been scheduled in order to try to settle this dispute at the earliest opportunity.
16The Government announcement of June 29, 2016 has potentially altered some of the background facts and circumstances relating to this Application. These may impact upon the nature of the proposed amendments.
17The respondent took no position on the request, i.e., it did not oppose it or suggest that allowing the amendment would be prejudicial in any way. Further, the respondent has already submitted its own amended Response, presumably in the expectation that the amendment would be granted.
ORDER
18For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request to amend the Application in accordance with the proposed amendments contained in his RFOP of July 16, 2016 is granted.
19The respondents’ amended Response to the amended Application is also accepted.
20Both parties may rely on these amendments when the mediation is continued on September 28 and 29, 2016.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of August, 2016.
“Signed By”
Eva Nichols
Member