CITATION: Kim v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, Office of the Independent Police Review Director and The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario 2015 ONSC 3055
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 166/14 DATE: 20150512
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, LEDERER AND A. J. GOODMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
HELEN KIM Applicant
– and –
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR AND THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO Respondents
In Person Jed M. Blackburn, for the Respondent, The Governing Council of the University of Toronto Lynette D’Souza, for the Respondent, Office of the Independent Police Review Director Carina Lentsch¸ for the Respondent, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Brian A. Blumenthal, for the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: May 12, 2015
SACHS J. (ORALLY)
[1] The applicant filed nine applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“the HRTO”) each of which alleged violations of every ground and in every social area contained in the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”) arising out of incidents that allegedly occurred between 1992 and 1998 and during the 2012 to 2013 academic year at the University of Toronto.
[2] In accordance with its statutory mandate to control its own process and practices, the HRTO directed a summary hearing be held to determine first if the application should be dismissed on the basis of no reasonable prospect that the applications will succeed and secondly, whether some of the allegations should be dismissed on the basis of delay.
[3] The HRTO dismissed a number of the allegations as untimely and dismissed the remaining allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success. The HRTO refused to reconsider those decisions.
[4] On this application, the applicant seeks to judicially review both the HRTO’s original decision and its Reconsideration decision. In doing so, neither her Notice of Application, her Factum or her oral submissions addressed the central question before this Court, namely, why either of those decisions was unreasonable?
[5] What the applicant focused on was an allegation that the HRTO failed to include or make reference to all of the respondents against whom she was complaining in her applications. However, a review of the nine applications that were filed with the HRTO makes it clear that the only organizations that were named as respondents in those applications were the three that are before this Court, namely, The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, The Office of the Independent Police Review Director and The College of Physicians and Surgeons.
[6] The fact that the applicant may have made reference to other organizations in the body of her applications does not mean that those organizations should have been considered respondents by the HRTO, especially when those references fail to show a connection between those organizations and any allegation that they violated the applicant’s rights under the Code.
[7] For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
COSTS
[8] I have endorsed the back of the Record of Proceedings of the Human Rights Tribunal as follows: “For reasons given orally this application is dismissed. Two of the respondents are seeking costs – The University of Toronto and The College of Physicians and Surgeons. The other two are not seeking costs. Each respondent who is seeking costs seeks a nominal amount of $1,500.00. In our view, their requests are reasonable and should be granted. In other words, the applicant is to pay The Governing Council of the University of Toronto and The College of Physicians and Surgeons, the sum of $1,500.00 each by way of costs.”
___________________________ SACHS J.
LEDERER J.
A. J. GOODMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 12, 2015 Date of Release: May 15, 2015
CITATION: Kim v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, Office of the Independent Police Review Director and The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario 2015 ONSC 3055
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 166/14 DATE: 20150512
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, LEDERER AND A. J. GOODMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
HELEN KIM Applicant
– and –
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE REVIEW DIRECTOR AND THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: May 12, 2015 Date of Release: May 15, 2015