Roeland TenBruggencate v. County of Elgin and Michael Toth, 2009 HRTO 666

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Roeland TenBruggencate Applicant

-and-

County of Elgin and Michael Toth Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 20, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 666

Indexed as: TenBruggencate v. Elgin (County)

1The applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on behalf of his father alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability. At the same time, he also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request to Expedite.

2The applicant’s father is a resident in a nursing home in Elgin County. While the applicant names the nursing home, Terrance Lodge Home for the Aged, as the corporate respondent, counsel advises that the proper name is the County of Elgin. The Tribunal orders that the style of cause be amended accordingly.

3The factual allegations set out in the Application are relatively straightforward. The applicant states his father has had a severe cough for over a year, for which no medical treatment has helped. A doctor of Chinese medicine, who had already treated his father, attended to his father and prescribed homeopathic drops to be taken prior to each meal.

4The applicant states that the nursing home staff has refused to give the drops to his father unless authorized by his father’s doctor at the home, the respondent Michael Toth. Dr. Toth, in turn, refuses to make the necessary order, although he has stated that the applicant is free to attend the nursing home and provide his father with the treatment. The applicant states his father, who is 80, is bed-ridden by his various disabilities and, therefore, unable to take the drops on his own.

5The expedited hearing process is available where the circumstances of an application “require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute” (see Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). Where the Tribunal decides to expedite a proceeding, it may do so by abridging time limits, scheduling early dates, or taking any other steps it deems appropriate. An applicant requesting that his or her matter be expedited must identify urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application and the harm that may result if the request is denied (Rule 21.2).

6In his Request the applicant identifies the urgent circumstances as the fact that his father is being denied medication that he wishes to take, and which might resolve his symptoms. The harm is identified as the deterioration of his father’s physical and emotional health. Both respondents separately consent to the matter being expedited, although Dr. Toth has indicated that his consent is conditional on the deadline for his Response not being abridged.

7Having considered this matter, I am prepared to grant the applicant’s Request to Expedite. In my view, the applicant has met his burden to show that there is sufficient urgency in resolving this matter given the potential impact on the health and well-being of his father, and that a delay may well result in harm that could not be remedied by any remedial order granted in a hearing adjudicated in the normal course. Because the respondents both consent to the applicant’s Request to Expedite, it is not necessary to consider whether they might be prejudiced by a shortened timeframe.

8All parties have indicated that they are prepared to try mediation. The Registrar will schedule mediation in consultation with the parties as soon as possible. In order to make mediation as productive as possible, the respondents are directed to file their Responses with the Tribunal one week prior to the mediation, or by the current deadline of June 9, 2009, whichever is the earlier. If mediation is not successful in resolving this matter, further case management directions will be provided.

9I am not seized of this matter.