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, Garda Ontario, Greg Burian, Sarah Lorenz, David Musyj, Teri Renaud and Peter Scislowski Respondents
AND B E T W E E N:
R.J. Potomski Applicant
-and-
Windsor Regional Hospital, Garda Ontario, Greg Burian, Sarah Lorenz, Barry Ewing, David Musyj, and Teri Renaud Respondents
AND B E T W E E N:
Terence Romanchook Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and Erie St. Clair Community Care Access Centre Respondents
AND B E T W E E N:
Terence Romanchook Applicant
-and-
Windsor Regional Hospital and Hsien-Cheng (Wallace) Liang Respondents
AND B E T W E E N:
Terence Romanchook Applicant
-and-
Windsor Regional Hospital Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: December 31, 2008 File Numbers: 2008-00139-I; 2008-00231-I; 2008-00532-I; 2008-00808-I Citation: 2008 HRTO 447 Indexed as: Romanchook v. Garda Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Terence Romanchook, Applicant ) R.J. Potomski, Representative R.J. Potomski, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf Garda Ontario, Respondent ) Steven J. Gearing, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses whether these Applications will be heard together. Previous interim decisions setting out the background of these matters are Romanchook v. Garda Ontario, 2008 HRTO 127, Romanchook v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2008 HRTO 217, Romanchook v. Garda Ontario, 2008 HRTO 313, and Romanchook v. Garda Ontario, 2008 HRTO 349.
2In Romanchook v. Garda Ontario, 2008 HRTO 313, the Tribunal sought submissions on whether Applications 2008-00103-I, 2008-00105-I, 2008-00106-I, 2008-00107-I, 2008-00109-I, 2008-00139-I, 2008-00532-I and 2008-00808-I should be heard together.
3The applicant Terence Romanchook asks that all of the files in which he is the applicant be heard together, including file 2008-00231-I. He alleges that the respondents to this file have made assertions that conflict with assertions made by the respondents in other files. The applicant R.J. Potomski asks that the files in which he is the applicant be heard separately from those in which Mr. Romanchook is the applicant, because "as a legal representative of Terence Romanchook, R.J. Potomski has a conflict if their applications are heard together".
4Counsel for the respondent Garda Ontario and those of its employees who are individual respondents submit that the files in which Mr. Potomski and Mr. Romanchook are applicants should be heard together. He notes that they involve the same events, witnesses and documentary evidence.
5Applications 2008-00103-I, 2008-00105-I, 2008-00106-I, 2008-00107-I, 2008-00109-I, 2008-00139-I, 2008-00532-I and 2008-00808-I shall be heard together. They all involve straightforward factual issues – whether various actions taken by the respondents were a reprisal for human rights claims. They are all alleged to be reprisals for the same assertion of rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. As Mr. Potomski's and Mr. Romanchook's reprisal Applications involve the same facts, it would not be appropriate to have the facts determined separately in two separate proceedings. While I make no comment on the "conflict" issue raised by Mr. Potomski, the benefit of having applications that involve the same facts heard together outweighs any prejudice that may be caused. Application 2008-000231-I, against the Crown and the Erie St. Clair Community Care Access Centre, relates to policies regarding placement in long-term care, an entirely different issue. It would not be fair, just or expeditious for this file to be heard together with the others.
OTHER ISSUES
6I note that Mr. Romanchook's submissions in response to the previous Interim Decision request a Tribunal-ordered inquiry. This request must be made on the proper Tribunal form, in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal will not consider it further at this time. Further, I note that the applicants' submissions suggest that the Public Guardian and Trustee and the Consent and Capacity Board are respondents in one or more of these Applications. The Tribunal has made no order adding them as respondents.
7Unlike the other individual respondents, Peter Scislowski, an individual respondent in File 2008-00109-I, and Barry Ewing, an individual respondent in File 2008-00139-I, are not represented by counsel representing the organizations for which they are or were employed. To ensure they receive notice of these proceedings, pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, Garda Ontario is directed to provide the Tribunal with the address of Mr. Scislowski from its records, and Windsor Regional Hospital is directed to provide the Tribunal with the address of Mr. Ewing from its records.
ORDER
8The Tribunal orders:
Applications 2008-00103-I, 2008-00105-I, 2008-00106-I, 2008-00107-I, 2008-00109-I, 2008-00139-I, 2008-00532-I and 2008-00808-I shall be heard together.
Garda Ontario is directed to provide the Tribunal with the address of Peter Scislowski shown in its records.
Windsor Regional Hospital is directed to provide the Tribunal with the address of Barry Ewing shown in its records.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of December, 2008.
"Signed by"
David A. Wright Vice-Chair