HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Albert Deloras-Billot, Evonne Deloras-Billot, Michael Deloras-Billot
Thierry Deloras-Billot and Jennifer Deloras-Billot
Applicants
-and-
L’Hopital Montfort Hospital and the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Deloras-Billot v. L’Hopital Montfort Hospital
1This is an Application to the Tribunal filed on October 14, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
2The material before the Tribunal raises some issues requiring case management and direction.
3It appears that the primary events that led to the filing of this Application are the treatment received by Albert Deloras-Billot during his stay at Montfort General Hospital, the circumstances surrounding his death and the subsequent events surrounding his family’s attempt to have an inquest held into his death.
4The Application alleges Albert Deloras-Billot received an inadequate level of care while he was being treated at Montfort General Hospital in September, 2007 and this amounted to discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities on the basis of age, disability, creed and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.
5The Application further alleges that following Mr. Deloras-Billot’s death, the family was treated discourteously and in a discriminatory fashion when they sought to have an inquest into the death and this amounted to discrimination on the basis of age, disability, creed and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.
6The applicants include the deceased, his widow, Evonne, and their children, Michael, Thierry and Jennifer. There is an issue as to whether each applicant needs to file a separate application as well as whether an application by the deceased is properly brought by the estate or in his name.
7The applicants have submitted documents that list a number of respondents, some named, some partially named and others identified only by their occupational title or position. It is not possible to deliver the Application to the inadequately identified respondents.
8The Application documents refer to a previous complaint filed with the Commission and subsequently withdrawn. There is also an issue about whether this Application was filed within the timelines allowed under the Code.
9The Tribunal must deal with this Application in a way that is fair just and expeditious.
10The Application, although drafted in a somewhat confusing manner, provides sufficient information to permit the two corporate respondents named to know and respond to the allegations. In the circumstances the Application shall be delivered, with a copy of this Interim Decision, to the two named corporate respondents.
11In their Responses, the corporate respondents may provide their position, if any, on the issues set out in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. The applicants should address those positions, if any, and any new matters raised by the respondents in their Reply.
12Following receipt of Responses from these respondents, and the applicants’ Reply, the applicants and the corporate respondents will attend a case management conference before the Tribunal. At that time the applicants will be required to address the issues set out in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 (above), correctly identify and explain the relationship between other named respondents and the allegations contained in the Application, and, if the Tribunal directs, may be required to respond to preliminary issues raised by the corporate respondents. The respondents will be invited to outline their position on the same issues.
13The applicants may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca, or from the Registrar’s office. Pages 2-3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to them.
14I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of February, 2009.
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair