Hallett v. Grey Bruce Health Services, 2009 HRTO 257

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kristen Hallett

Applicant

-and-

Grey Bruce Health Services, Pat Campbell, Don Eby and Frank Greaves

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Kristen Hallett

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Medical Association, Robert Lee, Michael Thorburn and Michael Kaufman

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Kristen Hallett

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Health and Long Term Care, Karen Stanley, Derrick Legere and George Smitherman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: March 6, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 257

Indexed as: Hallett v. Grey Bruce Health Services

1This matter is proceeding to a Case Resolution Conference on March 12 and 13, 2009 to address a number of preliminary issues raised by the respondents to the various Applications.

2By letter dated February 20, 2009, the applicant has requested broad disclosure essentially of all documents that are arguably relevant to the matters at issue in these Applications, which is the disclosure obligation that applies under the Rules of Procedure prior to an application proceeding to a case resolution conference on the merits.

3The Case Resolution Conference on March 12 and 13, 2009 is not a hearing on the merits but on various preliminary motions raised by the respondents, almost all of which are jurisdictional in nature. Accordingly, the issue for me to address at this stage of the proceeding is whether the disclosure sought by the applicant is arguably relevant only to the issues raised on those preliminary motions.

4I am not satisfied that it is. The applicant contends that the main factual issues to be determined on the motions are the nature of the relationships between the parties and the degree to which the relationships mirror aspects of an “employment relationship”. This, clearly, is not the issue with the Ontario Medical Association (“OMA”) respondents in T-0168-08. Rather, the issues are whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the allegations raised in the application and/or to award the remedies sought. The underlying complaint was not filed under the ground of “employment” but rather under the section of the Code dealing with vocational associations.

5This also is not the issue as against the Grey Bruce Health Services (“GBHS”) respondents in T-0167-08. Rather, the issues are whether the Application is barred as a result of the civil claim filed by the applicant, prohibited by s. 13 of the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40 an abuse of process or otherwise outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6With regard to the Ministry of Health (“MOH”) respondents in T-0169-08, there appears to be an issue between the parties as to whether the Application is alleging a breach of the applicant’s “employment” rights under s. 5 of the Code or her “contract” rights under s. 3 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In either event, in my view, the nature of the relationship between the parties falls mainly to be determined on the basis of the agreement between the MOH and the applicant and other physicians in her group. I fail to see how the kind of broad-based request for all correspondence between the Ministry and a whole range of individuals on a wide range of issues is necessary for determination of the Ministry’s preliminary motion.

7The applicant also submits that the documentation will demonstrate that the respondents were fully apprised of the applicant’s medical needs, had the ability and power to assist with accommodation, and had the ability to exert financial and regulatory control over the situation. Again, with respect, these are not the issues raised on the preliminary motions. The issue raised by the MOH respondents and by the OMA respondents is whether they have a legal obligation under the jurisdiction of the Code in the circumstances of this case. The issues raised by the GBHS respondents also are jurisdictional in nature, and do not raise the factual issues as asserted by the applicant.

8The applicant further submits that production of documentation requested with regard to the relationship between the OMA and the MOH is required to counter the suggestion that these parties are not involved in the negotiation and drafting of physician’s Alternate Funding Agreements, and to demonstrate that these respondents derive a benefit from these agreements. I do not understand the relevance of these points to the issues raised on the preliminary motions brought by these two parties. Whether or not these respondents have a role in negotiating or drafting these agreements or derive any benefit from these agreements appears to me to be separate issues from whether or not the allegations raised by the applicant as against these two respondents are capable of falling within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Code.

9For all of the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s request for production is denied.