HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Zvonimir Basic
Applicant
-and-
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ontario Drug Benefit Plan
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Basic v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)
1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on July 31, 2009, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in services, goods and facilities on the ground of disability. The main issue appears to be the effect of a rule under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program (ODB) that imposes a limit on coverage for a particular prescription pain medication. The ODB will not cover more than a two-week supply of this medication at a time, and apparently does not allow coverage for two-week supplies dispensed “back-to-back”.
2In his Application, the applicant states that his family doctor considers this medication to be the best drug for him. However, he has filed no evidence from his doctor that would support his statement.
3The applicant asks that the Application be expedited pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for applications under Part IV of the Code. In support of his Request to Expedite the applicant states that he does not have the money to pay for the pain medication without coverage and will be without this medication by August 17, 2009.
4In its Response to Request to Expedite Proceedings, the respondent states that the limit on coverage was imposed because of concerns with the addictive nature of the medication and toxic side effects. The respondent suggests that the applicant can consult with his doctor immediately to discuss other pain relieving medication, and adds that the ODB has covered other pain management drugs on a monthly basis for the applicant, and continues to do so.
5In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, the Tribunal held that, for a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process. In these circumstances, I do not find that the facts are so urgent as to support giving this Application priority for Tribunal resources over other applications.
6In Weerawardane, (above) the Tribunal also stressed that its process is designed for timely resolution of disputes:
A respondent must file a complete response within 35 days after a copy of the application was delivered to the respondent (Rule 8), and a reply may be filed within 14 days of when the response was sent to the applicant (Rule 9). With the agreement of the parties and the Tribunal, mediation will be scheduled shortly afterwards. If no mediation takes place or following an unsuccessful mediation, the Tribunal will send a confirmation of hearing to the parties, which triggers an obligation to disclose all arguably relevant documents within 21 days (Rule 16.1). A hearing will follow. The Tribunal expects most hearings to be completed within one year of an application being filed.
7The respondent’s Response to the Application is due on or before September 18, 2009.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of August, 2009.
”Signed By”
Judith Keene
Vice-chair