D.B. by his Litigation Guardian J.B. v. Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1512

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

D.B. by his Litigation Guardian J.B.

Applicant

-and-

Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: November 17, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1512

Indexed as: D.B. by his Litigation Guardian J.B. v. Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

D.B. by his Litigation Guardian J.B., Applicant

Wade Poziomka, Counsel

Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board, Respondent

Sheila MacKinnon, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application alleging discrimination in services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondent did not consider his disability or Code-related obligations in its disciplinary processes, including its decision to expel the applicant from all schools of the respondent. The applicant appealed his expulsion to the Child and Family Services Review Board.

2The respondent requested early dismissal of the Application on the basis that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondent alleges that the Application was appropriately dealt with in the expulsion appeal before the Child and Family Services Review Board.

decision

3Section 45.1 of the Code states:

45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

4The substance of the Application is that the respondent discriminated against the applicant in its disciplinary processes and decisions. The issue before the Child and Family Services Review Board was whether the applicant committed the acts that he was accused of and if so, whether he should be expelled, having regard to the statutory provisions of the Education Act. The Child and Family Services Review Board made its own decision about whether the applicant should be expelled. It did not review the disciplinary processes and decisions of the respondent, and it did not consider whether these processes/decisions discriminated against the applicant. As such, the Child and Family Services Review Board did not deal with the substance of the Application.

order

5For these reasons, the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application under section 45.1 is denied and the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

6Attached to this Interim Decision is information regarding the SJTO’s Child and Youth Division and a pilot project that was launched at the HRTO. Further to the attached information sheet, this application is part of the pilot project. It has been reviewed and triaged as fast-tracked, which means the first mediation date the HRTO offers the parties will be within four to eight weeks from when the parties agreed to mediation. As both parties have agreed to mediation, the HRTO will be in touch with them to schedule a mediation within this timeline.

7I am not seized of this matter.