Lydia Lemieux v. Guelph General Hospital, Audrey Henderson, Annette Harrington and Kaye Snowe, 2010 HRTO 1769

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lydia Lemieux Applicant

-and-

Guelph General Hospital, Audrey Henderson, Annette Harrington and Kaye Snowe Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: September 1, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1769 Indexed as: Lemieux v. Guelph General Hospital

Decision

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, dated June 29, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on July 3, 2007.

2This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Tribunal Ordered Inquiry (Form TR-6).

3The applicant seeks the Inquiry for the purposes of securing evidence related to the following issues:

a. The causes of the applicant’ medical condition and liability therefore;

b. The applicant’s prognosis for recovery;

c. Professional assistance in determining appropriate remedies compensating the applicant;

4The applicant states that physicians have attributed her medical conditions to the behaviour of the respondents and her bargaining agent. The applicant states however that she wants to rule out other potential causes. The applicant states that the information she is seeking will expedite the resolution of this Application. The applicant then states that she has endeavoured to obtain this evidence since 2007 and consulted physicians and other professionals but that she has been unable to obtain this evidence. The applicant states finally that there is reason to believe that the respondents have interfered in the applicant’s ability to obtain this evidence.

5The respondents oppose the Request.

6The Request is denied. As the Tribunal has noted on several occasions the parties are responsible for bringing the evidence necessary to maintain their positions and a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is not a substitute for the normal production process. While the applicant suggests that there is evidence linking her medical condition to inappropriate conduct of the respondents, in fact the reason for the Request appears to be that the applicant has been unable to obtain such evidence to date. If there is such evidence then it is likely arguably relevant and should be produced.

7For all of these reasons, the applicant’s Request is rejected.

8I am seized of this Application.