Mary Naidu v. Whitby Mental Health Centre and Peter Prendergast, 2010 HRTO 310

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mary Naidu

Applicant

-and-

Whitby Mental Health Centre and Peter Prendergast

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: February 10, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 310

Indexed as: Naidu v. Whitby Mental Health Centre

1This is an Application filed May 11, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Case Resolution Conference is scheduled for March 29, 2010.

2This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking extensive production. The respondents have indicated that they will be providing production of some but not all of the requests by the deadline stipulated for production, February 11, 2010 and therefore this request is premature. With respect to some other requests, the applicant has failed to establish a nexus between the documents requested and the issues in this Application.

3The Request for an Order is dismissed as premature. After February 11, 2010, the applicant may file a new request for Order setting out the documents requested, together with an explanation of how the documents are arguably relevant to the issues in this hearing.

4In reviewing the applicant’s original complaint and statement of facts and issues, it appears to the Tribunal that the applicant is attempting to raise allegations that fall outside the scope of the Tribunal’s authority, such as the quality of patient care, interference with the Medical Staff Association, the respondents’ failure to properly supervise, etc. She also raised allegations of a failure to accommodate a disability, which did not form part of the subject matter of the original complaint.

5To ensure a fair, just and expeditious hearing process, the applicant is directed to provide an outline of the subject matter of the complaint (with reference to when the alleged harassment and discrimination began and ended) and to explain why the alleged failure to accommodate should be considered part of the subject matter of the Application, within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision.

6The respondents are directed to file a response indicating their view of the proper scope of the Application, within ten days of the applicant’s submissions.

7The Tribunal will issue further directions as required.