HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robert Smith Applicant
-and-
Lakeridge Health Bomanville Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: October 14, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2079 Indexed as: Smith v. Lakeridge Health
APPEARANCES BY
Robert Smith, Applicant (Self-represented) Lakeridge Health, Respondent (Gordon Fitzgerald, Counsel)
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A summary hearing was held by telephone conference call on October 5, 2010. The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue in a summary hearing is whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed. The Tribunal scheduled the summary hearing in this case on its own initiative. As directed by a Tribunal Case Assessment Direction dated August 17, 2010, the respondent has not filed a Response to the Application but has provided documentation relevant to the case,
2During the conference call, I heard from the applicant and the respondent. After some initial discussion, the parties agreed to explore the possibility that the issues in the Application might be settled between them. After some brief discussion, it became apparent that a settlement was not likely. I then heard final comments and submissions on the question of whether there is a reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
3The respondent is a hospital. The applicant, who is 66 years of age, alleges that he was discriminated against by the hospital on the grounds of age.
4The applicant had colon surgery at the hospital in March 2009. Unfortunately, he experienced post-surgery complications including infection at the wound site and a large hernia. He has experienced severe pain and has required a number of medical interventions which are continuing to date. Some of the medical interventions were required on an emergency basis and the applicant’s understanding is that his condition was very serious and could have been fatal.
5In December 2009, the applicant filed a formal complaint with the hospital. The hospital did not provide the applicant with a response to the complaint until August 2010.
6The hospital has a policy that sets out the process for resolving complaints from patients. The policy provides that a preliminary case review is usually to be completed within three business days after the complaint is received. An update is to be provided every four weeks. The target for complaint resolution is 28 days, “however, not all matters can be resolved within that time.”
7The time lines set out in the policy were not met in this case. The hospital has apologized on a number of occasions for the delay in responding to his complaint. The applicant does not feel that the hospital has provided an adequate explanation for the delay.
8The applicant believes that he experienced discrimination on the grounds of age, both with respect to the medical treatment that he received and with respect to the complaint process.
9In regard to the medical treatment, the applicant alleges that he experienced differential treatment on a number of occasions during his stay in hospital. For example, when he first reported to the Emergency Department, he was required to wait a long time before he received any treatment. On other occasions, he was spoken to by hospital staff, and in particular by nurses, in a way that he found demeaning and patronizing. He felt that because of his age, some of hospital staff treated him as if he were senile.
10In regard to the complaint process, the applicant believes that his complaint was not taken seriously by the hospital because of his age. The applicant concedes that no one ever said anything directly to suggest that this might be the case. However, he can think of no other explanation for the inordinate delay in responding to his complaint. During the telephone conference, he speculated that the hospital might have dragged out its investigation in the hopes that he would die. He has made the same suggestion during various contacts he has had with hospital staff during the investigation process.
Conclusions
11On the basis of the information provided by the applicant, I find that there is no support for his allegation that he experienced differential treatment on the basis of age in the course of the medical treatment he received at the hospital. Many patients who report to a hospital Emergency Room experience delay before receiving treatment. The length of the delay is influenced by how busy the Emergency Room is and the triage process of determining which patients are in the greatest need of immediate medical attention. Patients who are admitted to hospital have interactions with a number of doctors, nurses and other health care providers. The way these people interact with patients will vary from person to person. In my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can show that the fact that some of his interactions were less than positive was because of discrimination on the grounds of age.
12It is very clear that the applicant has experienced a high level of frustration in his dealings with the hospital since December 2009 when he filed his formal complaint. The reasons for the inordinate delay in dealing with his complaint are not clearly explained by the information that the hospital has provided. However, it appears to me that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can show that the delay is because of his age. It certainly seems very unlikely that the applicant could produce any evidence to support his theory that the hospital was hoping that he would die so that it would not have to respond to his complaint. The applicant has not identified any other basis for his belief that the delay is due to his age.
13This Tribunal does not have a general mandate to deal with allegations about improper medical care or a hospital’s response to a complaint about patient care. The Tribunal can only deal with allegations that a person experienced discrimination on one of the grounds protected by the Code. One of those grounds is age. However, in my view, there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant can show that he experienced discrimination on the grounds of age either with respect to the medical care he received or with respect to the complaint process. For this reason, I conclude that the Application must be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of October, 2010.
”signed by”__________
Brian Cook Vice-chair