Stangret v. Nagji, 2009 HRTO 494

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gerrald Stangret

Applicant

-and-

Noor Nagji

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: April 24, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 494

Indexed as: Stangret v. Nagji

1This is an Application filed on October 15, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the respondent's Request to defer the Application pending the resolution of a complaint filed by the applicant with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the "College").

BACKGROUND

2The Application arises out of the applicant's use of the medical services of the respondent, a doctor who practices at a walk-in medical clinic. The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against by the respondent by her dismissive treatment of him, her refusal to provide him with medical care for a sleeping problem and her actions to "force [him] out of the clinic" on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and age.

3The respondent denies the allegations. According to the respondent, the applicant received medical care that was reasonable and prudent in the circumstances and that he was only asked to leave the clinic when he became angry, demanding and aggressive following the respondent's decision to not prescribe him certain medication. The respondent denies that the applicant's age, race, ethnicity or disability had any bearing on her actions in regard to the applicant.

4On December 19, 2008, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings regarding the scope of the Application. In her Request, the respondent requested an order dismissing parts of the Application on the basis that they are outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction or alternatively, defining and narrowing the issues to be decided to the question of whether or not the respondent discriminated against the applicant.

5The parties attempted mediation but the Application was not resolved.

6On March 17, 2009, the respondent filed a further Request for Order During Proceeding seeking deferral of the Application.

7In support of her Request to defer, the respondent filed a copy of a complaint filed with the College (albeit with certain portions blacked out), along with a copy of the cover letter to the respondent from the College investigator dated January 6, 2009 which provides, among other things, a description of the substance of the complaint. In particular, the investigator describes the complaint as follows:

The substance of Mr. Stangret's complaint is that Dr. Nagji:

• treated the patient in a "dismissive manner" which the patient believes is due to his disability and skin colour (white);
• denied him treatment because he has three medical problems;
• did not allow for sufficient time for the patient to speak with her about his problems;
• will not allow the patient to use the Pharmacy of his choice to fill prescriptions, and has told the patient that she will only prescribe if the "Pro-Care" Pharmacy is used;
• phoned in all of his prescriptions, and has never provided him with a written prescription so that he would be able to use the Pharmacy of his choice.

7The investigator further states that all reasonable efforts will be made to resolve the issues raised by Mr. Stangret. Further, the investigator states that in the "usual course of events, the information collected during the investigation will be made available to the Complaints Committee whose members are charged with deciding what action, if any, the College will take in relation to this complaint" and that if either party requests a review of the Committee's decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, the Board may disclose any of the information that was before the Committee to the parties.

8The respondent submits that the same underlying events arise in the Application and the complaint before the College and that if both proceed at the same time, there is the risk of conflicting decisions. Further, the respondent submits that the nature of the College's proceeding would be of assistance to the Tribunal since the Complaints Committee of the College, as part of its proceedings, will independently investigate Mr. Stangret's complaint before issuing a decision and reasons. The respondent notes that the status of both "complaints" is at the same stage so deferral would not unfairly delay a proceeding close to resolution. While the respondent concedes that a deferral may not satisfactorily conclude all discrimination issues or provide the applicant with a remedy of damages, it will eliminate the risk of concurrent proceedings and therefore provides the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding.

9The applicant opposes deferral of his Application. Among other things, he states that the complaint made to the Tribunal is as a result of being discriminated whereas the complaint filed with the College is because of fraud and incompetence. In addition, he states that a deferral will violate his "right to a speedy result".

DECISION

10Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

11Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

12In this case, while it is clear that there is an overlap in the facts in the Application and the complaint process underway at the College, all of the other factors suggest that deferral is not appropriate. This is not a case where there are concurrent legal proceedings occurring. At this time, the complaint at the College is only at the initial stage of being investigated, which may or may not proceed further to a hearing, whereas the Application is ready to be scheduled for hearing. Further, this is not a case where the applicant is seeking substantially similar remedies concurrently. As acknowledged by the respondent, the applicant will not be able to obtain the remedy that he seeks at the Tribunal through his complaint at the College.

13The Tribunal therefore decides against deferral of this Application. If, during the processing of this Application, the Complaints Committee or the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, makes a decision on the complaint, the Tribunal can determine what effect, if any, to give to any decision of the College in deciding the issues in this Application.

14The outstanding Request to dismiss/limit the scope of the Application remains outstanding and will be addressed by the adjudicator assigned to hear the matter.

15I am not seized.