Leach v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2017 HRTO 1412

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shelley Leach

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, County of Renfrew Ontario Works, and United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Ontario Works

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: October 25, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1412 Indexed as: Leach v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shelley Leach, Applicant Mikaila Greene, Counsel

Ministry of Community and Social Services, Respondent Yashoda Ranganathan, Counsel

County of Renfrew Ontario Works and United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Ontario Works, Respondents Stephen Menard, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to add two respondents to the Application and her request that the summary hearing in this matter be held in person.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant’s main allegation is that the respondent discriminated against her by denying her the Guide Dog Benefit available under the Ontario Works legislation. She also alleged that she was harassed about bringing her guide dog into the Killaloe and Kemptville Ontario Works offices.

request to add respondents

3The applicant has requested that the Tribunal add Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services (“Ministry”) and United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Ontario Works (“UCLG Ontario Works”) as respondents to the Application.

4The Ministry consents to being added as a respondent to respond to the Guide Dog Benefit issue. It also submitted that the Tribunal should remove Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General as an intervenor as it is in effect the same entity. UCLG Ontario Works does not oppose being added as a respondent with respect to the applicant’s allegations regarding the Kemptville Ontario Works office.

Decision

5When determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal considers the following three questions:

1. Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
2. If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
3. Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

See Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513.

6Applying these factors, and their lack of opposition to the applicant’s request, I find it appropriate to add the Ministry and UCLG Ontario Works as respondents. I also agree that it is appropriate to remove Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General as an intervenor.

request for in-person summary hearing

7The applicant request an in-person summary hearing as an accommodation. None of the respondents responded to her request and the time for doing so has passed. I find it appropriate to grant her request as an accommodation for her disabilities.

order

8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Ontario Works are added as respondents to the Application. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General will be removed as an intervenor and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

• The Tribunal will send a copy of the Application and Reply to these two respondents as well as a copy of the Tribunal’s July 27, 2017 Case Assessment Direction in which it ordered a summary hearing.

• These two added respondents are not required to file a Response at this time. However, if they do wish to rely upon any documentation or case law in the summary hearing, they must file copies of these documents or cases with the Tribunal and deliver them to the other parties no later than 35 days after the date of this Interim Decision. The parties should not file any copies of case law from the Tribunal as the Tribunal has access to its own case law.

b. The applicant’s request that the summary hearing be held in person is granted.

9I am not seized of this matter.