N.W. v. Peel District School Board, 2017 HRTO 943

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

N.W.

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board, Seema Paul, Rajinder Chahal, and Ann Alfonso

Respondents

AND BETWEEN

J.N. as represented by his Litigation Guardian N.W.

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board, Seema Paul, Rajinder Chahal, and Ann Alfonso

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: July 25, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 943 Indexed as: N.W. v. Peel District School Board

APPEARANCES

N.W., Applicant Self-represented

Peel District School Board Seema Paul, Rajinder Chahal, and Ann Alfonso, Respondent Roy Filion, Counsel

1These Applications allege discrimination in education services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”). The first Application is brought on behalf of a child who at the relevant times was a kindergarten student and the second is brought by the child’s mother. The allegations are the same in both Applications.

2After filing the original Applications, the applicant submitted a request to amend them to add additional allegations regarding events after the Applications were filed. The respondents denied any discrimination and asked that the Application be dismissed. In the alternative, the respondents asked that the personal respondents be removed as respondents.

3After reviewing the Applications, the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to schedule a summary hearing to clarify the nature of the allegations and to determine if the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part as having no reasonable prospect of success and also to address the requests to amend the Applications and to remove the personal respondents.

4The summary hearing was held by telephone conference call. The applicant and counsel for the respondents participated.

5In a summary hearing, the Tribunal is obliged to accept as true the applicant's allegations about what she alleges happened, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

6In this case, it appears that there are some disagreements between the parties about what exactly happened in the relevant encounters. These disagreements can only be resolved on the basis of evidence about what each party says occurred.

7Some of the allegations depend to a great extent on context. Depending on the context, it is possible that at least some of the events did involve discrimination. A determination of what the real context was is also something that can only be made on the basis of evidence from those involved.

8I conclude that the Applications cannot be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success at this time.

9In regard to the request to amend the Application, I find that the applicant could have filed a separate Application regarding those allegations. If she had done so, the new Application would have been timely. Given the inter-relationship of the original allegations and the new allegations, the Tribunal would have combined the Applications in any event. It is more efficient to allow the original Applications to be amended. The request to amend the Applications is granted.

10The respondents have not yet filed a response to the new allegations and they may now do so within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11I find that a determination about whether to remove the personal respondents should be left to be decided by the adjudicator who is assigned to hear these Applications. The request to remove the personal respondents may be made again at the outset of the hearing.