Michael Loughlan

The Tribunal heard four motions regarding complaints filed by children with autism alleging discrimination by Ontario in the provision of Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) services.

Ontario moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the claims were based on an age under 18, which is excluded from the Code's definition of age.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints and the constitutional challenge to the age definition.

Ontario's alternative motion to stay the proceedings pending related Superior Court decisions was also denied.

The Commission and Complainants moved for substantive interim relief to compel Ontario to fund IBI treatment pending the hearing.

The Tribunal denied this motion, ruling it lacked statutory authority under the Code or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to grant interlocutory injunctive relief.

Finally, the Tribunal determined on its own motion that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor complainants.

The complainant, a child with autism, brought a motion before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario seeking interim injunctive relief to reinstate funding for his intensive behavioural intervention therapy.

Concurrently, the complainant and others obtained an interim interim mandatory order from the Superior Court of Justice reinstating the same funding pending an interlocutory injunction hearing.

The Tribunal found that the relief sought was identical to that granted by the Court.

Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding that the factual underpinning for the urgency and irreparable harm no longer existed, and declined to decide the abstract question of its jurisdiction to grant such relief.