Zvonimir Basic v. Royal Health Care Centre and Andy Gidwani, 2009 HRTO 1400

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zvonimir Basic

Applicant

-and-

Royal Health Care Centre and Andy Gidwani

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: September 3, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1400

Indexed as: Basic v. Royal Health Care Centre

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on August 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 the respondent physician terminated the physician/patient relationship due to the applicant’s disability and sexual orientation contrary to the Code. The applicant requests a financial remedy for the alleged discrimination. The applicant has also filed a Request to Expedite asking the Tribunal to deal with his Application within 30 days as he requires medication repeats and anticipates difficulty in finding a physician who will prescribe the medications. The harm he alleges would result if the Request is denied is “dealth” [sic].

2The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide for applications to be dealt with in an expedited manner in urgent circumstances. Rule 21.1 provides that an applicant may request that the Tribunal deal with an application on an expedited basis in circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute. Rule 21.2 requires an applicant seeking an expedited application to identify any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application and the harm that would result if the request is denied.

3In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at para. 9 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.

4In Ebrahimi v. Durham District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1062, the Tribunal noted that another basis for expediting an application may be where a requested (and arguably appropriate) remedy will be moot, or unavailable, without expediting an application.

5In accordance with Rules 5.2 and 21.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal does not require a Response to Request to Expedite from the respondent. Having reviewed the applicant’s materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. The applicant has asserted, without any foundation, that he will not be able to find a physician who will prescribe his medications once his current prescriptions run out, allegedly in 30 days, and that this will result in the harm alleged. I find that the circumstances the applicant describes are speculative as there are a number of means by which he may receive medical treatment including through walk-in clinics and hospital emergency rooms.

6Further, even if a hearing were to be held within 30 days, the Tribunal’s remedial powers do not extend to ordering that medications be prescribed for the applicant.

7In the circumstances, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that expedition is necessary to ensure a fair adjudication, or to prevent the remedy he is seeking from becoming moot. Nor does it appear that the Request is otherwise appropriate, as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order the remedy sought. The Request to Expedite is dismissed.

8I am not seized of this matter.