Grewal v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario, 2009 HRTO 2227

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sarjit Grewal Applicant

-and-

College of Veterinarians of Ontario and Health Professions Appeal and Review Board Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: December 18, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2227 Indexed as: Grewal v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), filed on May 29, 2009, which was completed on October 7, 2009. It alleges discrimination by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario ("CVO") and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board ("HPARB") arising from the refusal of a license to the applicant. In his Application, he alleges that the refusal of the CVO to issue him a license, and subsequent denial of his request for review by the HPARB constitute discrimination on the basis of disability and record of offences and reprisal. This Decision determines whether the Application falls under the Tribunal's jurisdiction (power) to decide.

BACKGROUND

2In February of 2004, the applicant submitted an application for a general license to the College of Veterinarians of Ontario. The application was refused by the Registrar and then the Registration Committee, noting the applicant's past criminal history related to a mental health condition. The applicant requested a review of this decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. In a detailed decision dated June 22, 2005 that included an analysis of the Code and psychiatric recommendations, the HPARB returned the matter to the CVO Registration Committee and recommended that an attempt to be made to accommodate the applicant.

3The Registration Committee of the CVO considered the matter again and, in a decision dated July 17, 2006, refused to issue a license to the applicant. It stated that in an attempt to accommodate the applicant it would propose a course of action that would likely satisfy a future panel that a license could be issued to him. It included recommendations of conditions that a future panel of the Registration Committee could apply.

4The applicant then filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission ("Commission") against the CVO on August 21, 2006, regarding the refusal of the license. By decision dated April 25, 2007, the Commission decided not to deal with the complaint under s. 34 (1)(a) of the old Code, on the basis that it could be more appropriately dealt with under the provisions of the Veterinarians Act.

5The applicant also requested a review of the CVO's second decision by the HPARB. By decision dated October 6, 2008, the HPARB confirmed the order of the Registration Committee to refuse to issue the applicant a licence.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

6On October 26, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 13.2 indicating that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because:

• The subject-matter of your Application appears to be the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code[s.53(8)];
• The Application alleges discrimination on the basis of Record of Offences in Membership in a Vocational Association. "Record of Offences" is not one of the prohibited grounds listed in s. 6 of the Code, which deals with allegations of discrimination in membership in a vocational association.
• As against the respondent Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, your completed Application does not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve. The Tribunal has held on a number of occasions that "services" within the meaning of the Code does not include the content, reasons or result of decisions of other statutory bodies or the Courts. You are directed to the Tribunal's decision in Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1595.
• It appears that the Application was filed more than one year after the alleged acts of discrimination by the respondent College of Veterinarians of Ontario and the Tribunal is not satisfied the delay was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay [s.34(1)].

7The applicant was invited to make written submissions on the above matters, which he did by letter dated November 17, 2009.

DECISION

8I will address first whether the Application as against the HPARB is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. In his submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant agreed that the Application "should only properly be against the College of Veterinarians of Ontario...and not against the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board of Ontario". As the allegations against the HPARB relate exclusively to the content, reasons and result of its decision, it does not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction: Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1595.

9With regard to the Application as against the CVO, s. 53(8) of the Code reads as follows:

No application, other than an application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.

10The applicant argues that his complaint against the CVO is not the same or substantially the same as the complaint previously filed with the Commission, because since then he has appealed to the HPARB and his request for review was denied.

11I do not agree. The complaint to the Commission was about the refusal by the CVO to issue a license in its decision of July 2006. That is the same subject-matter as the Application to the Tribunal, and the intervening appeal to the HPARB does not change that fact. Under s. 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal cannot consider an Application where its subject-matter is the same or substantially the same as a complaint that was previously filed with the Commission. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.

ORDER

12The Application is dismissed.