Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Destiny Robinson-Cooke Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: December 21, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1693 Indexed as: Robinson-Cooke v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
APPEARANCES
Destiny Robinson-Cooke, Applicant Mikaila Greene, Counsel
Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Respondent Yashoda Ranganathan, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability.
Background
2The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her by denying her the Guide Dog Benefit available under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, S.O. 1997. c. 25, Schedule B (the “Act”). The respondent denies that the decision not to provide the Guide Dog Benefit was discriminatory. The respondent states that to qualify for the benefit the dog in question must be trained and certified by an accredited facility for use as a guide, hearing or service dog. The applicant’s service dog was not so accredited; therefore, the applicant did not receive the benefit. The respondent submits that the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) addressed this issue in Decision 0508-0679R and found that this criterion did not violate the Code.
3The respondent requested a summary hearing in this matter, but the Tribunal denied its request. However, the Tribunal set down Application 2017-26107-I for a summary hearing. Application 2017-26107-I is another application in which the training and certification criterion for the Guide Dog Benefit is alleged to be discriminatory. One of the issues to be addressed in the summary hearing is whether the allegations regarding the training and certification criterion has a reasonable prospect of success in light of the SBT’s decision in Decision 0508-0679R. The respondent has been granted intervenor status in Application 2017-26107-I.
The Respondent’s Request
4On November 15, 2017, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an order deferring the mediation in this matter until the Tribunal has rendered a decision in Application 2017-26107-I. The respondent submitted that the both applications concern the training and certification requirement for the Guide Dog Benefit. The respondent submitted that, accordingly, the outcome of the summary hearing in Application 2017-26107-I is relevant information that could assist the parties at mediation. The respondent therefore submitted that deferring the mediation in this Application until after a decision is rendered in the summary hearing in Application 2017-26107-I would facilitate the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the dispute.
The applicant’s Response
5On December 1, 2017, the applicant filed a Response to a Request for Order in which it opposes the respondent’s request. The applicant submitted that the respondent’s request is a collateral attack on the Tribunal’s decision not to hold a summary hearing in this matter and does not account for the fact that each case should be decided on its particular facts. The applicant further submitted that the respondent’s request is an unjustified barrier to the expeditious resolution of her Application. The applicant also submitted that the respondent’s request contained confidential information from Application 2017-26107-I, i.e., a quote from the Case Assessment Direction setting the matter down for summary hearing. The applicant requested that the quote be redacted from the respondent’s request and that the Tribunal address this request in a Case Assessment Direction instead of an Interim Decision.
Analysis and Decision
6This Application and Application 2017-26107-I address the same issue, i.e., whether the requirement that service dogs be trained and certified by an accredited facility in order for recipients of Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program benefits to receive the Guide Dog Benefit is discriminatory. The SBT decided that it is not. In light of the SBT’s decision, one adjudicator set Application 2017-26107-I down for a summary hearing, while another adjudicator decided a summary hearing was not appropriate in this Application. The Tribunal strives for consistency in its decisions, but given the large number of cases the Tribunal addresses each year such inconsistencies can and do arise occasionally. While each case must be decided on its own facts, the key facts in these Applications are not materially different, as both applicants were denied the Guide Dog Benefit because their dogs did not have the requisite training and certification. The Tribunal has deferred dealing with Applications pending the outcome of other Applications dealing with the same or similar issues in the past. In this case, the legal issue of whether the training and certification requirement is discriminatory shall be addressed in the summary hearing in Application 2017-26107-I, which is scheduled for March 29, 2017. I agree that the outcome of the summary hearing will be highly relevant and useful information in the mediation of this matter. Given that the summary hearing in Application 2017-26107-I is scheduled for March 29, 2017 and mediation has not yet been scheduled in this matter, deferral of mediation pending the outcome of the summary hearing is not likely to cause significant delay. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to defer mediation in this matter pending the outcome of the summary hearing in Application 2017-26107-I.
Case Assessment Directions are not Confidential
7The respondent quoted from the Case Assessment Direction in which the Tribunal set Application 2017-26107-I down for a summary hearing. The applicant submitted that quoting from the Case Assessment was improper and arguably a violation of Rule 3.3.