A.T. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2017 HRTO 994

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.T.

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa and Children and Family Services for York Region

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: August 3, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 994

Indexed as: A.T. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

A.T., Applicant

Self-represented

Children and Family Services for York Region, Respondent

Amelia Daurio, Counsel

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent

Carole Jenkins, Counsel

1This Application, filed on July 31, 2015 under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability.

2In an Interim Decision in this matter, 2016 HRTO 51, the Tribunal deferred this Application pending the conclusion of related child protection proceedings before the Court.

3The respondent Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa has filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) seeking the reactivation of this Application, at least as against it. The applicant supports reactivation of the Application as a whole. The respondent Children and Family Services for York Region opposes the Request on the basis that the proceeding in the Superior Court to which the Application was deferred is ongoing.

4I am not satisfied at this stage that there is a proper basis to reactivate this Application. The Tribunal noted in the Interim Decision:

This Application concerns child protection proceedings undertaken by the respondents and it is apparent that such proceedings remain in progress before the Court. At issue in the Application, is whether the respondents’ actions in apprehending her children and seeking Crown Wardship for her children violated her human rights. Consequently, the proceedings before the Court and this Tribunal deal with the same facts and also concern the respondents’ mandate under the Child and Family Services Act to protect and promote the best interests of children. In my view, the facts and issues in the two proceedings appear to overlap, which raises the potential of inconsistent results. The proceedings before the Court also appear to be further advanced than this Application.

5Although the Court proceedings have taken longer than might have been anticipated it remains that the proceeding is ongoing and may resolve all of the issues between the parties. In my view it would be inappropriate to reactivate this Application or even, as suggested by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, to carve out the Application as it relates to that organization.

6The Tribunal reminds the parties’ about Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the civil action has concluded.

7I am not seized.