Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Terence Romanchook Applicant

-and-

Garda Ontario and Greg Burian Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Terence Romanchook Applicant

-and-

Windsor Regional Hospital and Teri Renaud Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Terence Romanchook Applicant

-and-

Windsor Regional Hospital, David Musyj, Betty Gulak and Iris McGuire Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

R.J. Potomski Applicant

-and-

Garda Ontario and Greg Burian Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

R.J. Potomski Applicant

-and-

Windsor Regional Hospital, Greg Burian, Sarah Lorenz, David Musyj, Teri Renaud and Barry Ewing Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

R.J. Potomski Applicant

• and -

Windsor Regional Hospital, Greg Burian, Sarah Lorenz, Peter Scislowski, David Musyj, and Teri Renaud Respondents

amended INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: October 15, 2008 File Nos.: 2008-00109-I; 2008-00139-I Citation: 2008 HRTO 127 Indexed as: Romanchook v. Garda Ontario

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2C7 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 Fax (416) 326-2199 / 1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Terence Romanchook, Applicant (R.J. Potomski, Representative)

R.J. Potomski, Applicant (On his own behalf)

BACKGROUND

1R.J. Potomski is a paralegal who represents Terence Romanchook. Mr. Romanchook is a patient at Windsor Regional Hospital (the "Hospital"). Mr. Potomski filed three applications with the Tribunal on Mr. Romanchook's behalf, and three on his own behalf. The respondents to the various applications are the Hospital, a firm that the applicants state provides security to the Hospital, and employees of both organizations. The applications allege that various actions taken by the respondents when dealing with Mr. Romanchook and Mr. Potomski at the Hospital were reprisals for a complaint at the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Potomski represents Mr. Romanchook in that complaint and seeks to add the Hospital as a respondent to that complaint.

2In each Application, the applicant did not complete section 6 of the Tribunal's application form, which requires the applicant to: "Put an "X" in the box beside the areas where you believe you have experienced discrimination". The options are employment, housing, goods, services or facilities, contracts, and membership in a vocational association. There is a separate supplemental form related to each social area. In each Application, the applicant wrote as follows:

This is a reprisal complaint. There is no discrimination within this specific complaint. You do not have an extra form for a reprisal. None of the existing "1" forms are related.

3In each Application, the Tribunal sent Mr. Potomski a request to complete section 6 and fill out the appropriate supplemental form. Mr. Potomski did not do so, despite various correspondence with and telephone calls to the Registrar's office. He did include answers to two sections of the contracts form related to reprisals in which he identified the Commission complaint the applicants say has led to the reprisals. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss in each file, as it appeared that the application did not allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code"), and invited submissions from Mr. Potomski.

4The applicants refer to s. 8 of the Code, and note that it does not list reprisal as a form of discrimination, unlike the other substantive sections of the Code. Section 8 reads as follows:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

5Mr. Potomski summarizes the applicants' reason for not completing section 6 of the application form or an applicable supplemental form in a letter to the Registrar dated August 11, 2008: "A form of discrimination is not required in an act of reprisal...If I were to check off anything under section 6 of the complaint, I may be misleading the tribunal and not telling the truth".

DECISION

Section 6 of the Application Form and Supplemental Form

6The Tribunal's forms and Rules of Procedure ensure that applications and responses provide complete information so that each application can be resolved in a fair, just and expeditious manner. Questions on the forms are included to give other parties full information about the allegations and defences, and to allow the Tribunal to make necessary decisions during the application process. The Tribunal's concern about the absence of a supplemental form and an answer under s. 6 is not merely technical, but stems from the absence of important information. The Tribunal's supplemental forms are generally applicable to reprisals, and indeed, each has a section asking questions specific to reprisal applications in that social area.

7Mr. Potomski is correct that s. 8 of the Code does not specifically include a requirement that there be "discrimination" in a social area for a reprisal to have occurred. He is also correct that the Tribunal's forms and question 6 refer to "discrimination".

8In the unique circumstances of these cases, given the nature of the reprisal allegations and the substantive information provided in the narrative, the Tribunal will not require section 6 or a supplemental form to be completed. The supplemental forms, however, do request certain information that is relevant to these applications that is not included in the substantive information that the applicants have completed. The relevant questions are as follows:

Complete this section only if you complained to someone in authority about the alleged discrimination.

C4 To whom did you complain?

C5 Was there an investigation?

a) If you answered "Yes" to C5, what was the outcome of the investigation?

Answers to these questions shall be provided to the Tribunal by October 14, 2008

Other Missing Information

9In each case, the applicant has indicated that he is seeking an "other specific remedy" and a "public interest remedy" but stated that the explanation of these remedies will be submitted "under a different cover at a later date". An applicant must include answers to all of the relevant questions on the application form so that respondents may respond and the Tribunal may deal with the matter expeditiously. The remedies a party is seeking are a fundamental part of an application and this Application does not contain this information. Accordingly, by October 14, 2008 the applicants shall file explanations of the remedies they seek, failing which the requests for these remedies shall be struck from the Application.

Unidentified Respondents

10In File No. 2008-00105-I, the applicant appears to wish to proceed with an "unknown registered nurse" as respondent and in File No. 2008-00139-I, he has named "James (last Name Unknown)" as a respondent. The Tribunal will not process an initial application filed against a respondent who is not fully identified, as it cannot send the application to them and respondents must be fully named.

11That does not mean, however, that the applicants may not use the Tribunal's process to attempt to obtain the names. Now that they have filed the Applications they may file a Request for Order During Proceedings under Rule 19, asking that the corporate respondents provide the names: see Cira v Barbara Minshall Racing Stable, 2008 HRTO 70 at para. 4. They should include as much information as possible about the person's identity to allow him or her to be identified. Once the names are obtained, the applicants may ask to add further respondents by making a Request for Order During Proceedings.

Request to Add Respondent

12In Tribunal File Nos. 2008-00109-I and 2008-00139-I, the applicant asks that the Applications be amended to add Windsor Regional Hospital as a respondent. Since the Applications have not yet been served on the respondents, the request is granted, and the Applications shall be treated as if they had originally named Windsor Regional Hospital.

Interim Remedies

13The applicants request interim remedies in the application form, but they have not filed the appropriate forms or provided the necessary information. Mr. Potomski's attention is directed to Rule 23 and Form 16. The interim requests contained in the Applications shall not be dealt with by the Tribunal.

ORDER

14The Tribunal makes the following order:

(1) The applicants shall answer the questions set out in paragraph 8, above, by October 14, 2008.

(2) Upon provision of the responses to these questions, the Tribunal will process the Application.

(3) Should the applicants fail to provide an explanation of the "other specific remedies" and "public interest remedies" they are seeking by October 14, 2008, these requests shall be struck from the Applications.

(4) In File No. 2008-00139-I, James (Unknown Last Name) is removed as a respondent.

(5) The Applications in File Nos. 2008-00109-I and 2008-00139-I are amended to add Windsor Regional Hospital as a respondent.

(6) A copy of the Applications and all correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicants shall be sent to the respondents with this decision. The respondents are not required to take any steps until they have received a Notice of Application from the Tribunal.

(7) I am not seized of these Applications.