Haskins v. Religious Hospitaliers of Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph, 2010 HRTO 412

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

The Religious Hospitaliers of Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London operating as Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital and EMS-Essex Windsor

Respondents

-and-

Windsor Police Services

Intervener

A N D B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Windsor,

Windsor Police Services and Jeffrey Dalpe

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: February 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 412

Indexed as: Haskins v. Religious Hospitaliers of Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph

1The applicant has filed two related Applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 ("the Code"). This Interim Decision determines whether these Applications will be heard together and whether to remove certain personal respondents.

Background

2The applicant filed Application 2009-1482-I on February 25, 2009 (the "February Application"), alleging that the Religious Hospitaliers of Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London operating as Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital ("Hotel Dieu Hospital"), Essex-Windsor EMS and Detroit Windsor Tunnel LLC discriminated against her in the provision of services on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability, and association with a person identified by a ground under the Code.

3The February Application alleges that the applicant was in her van in Windsor, Ontario on May 10, 2008, when she was stopped by an employee of the Detroit Windsor Tunnel LLC who, after a verbal exchange about where the van was parked, questioned the applicant about her mental health. This employee then called the Essex-Windsor EMS which, after arriving at the scene, allegedly told the applicant that she had to go to Hotel Dieu Hospital in order to undergo a mental health assessment.

4The February Application further alleges that the applicant was subsequently forced to take an ambulance to Hotel Dieu Hospital. The applicant contends that she was then kept at Hotel Dieu Hospital against her will, inappropriately medicated and generally treated in a manner that presumed she had mental health issues. The Application repeatedly refers to the applicant not having a mental health illness and that the three respondents discriminated against the applicant based on an assumed disability.

5Hotel Dieu Hospital and Windsor-Essex EMS filed Responses to the February Application in which they denied the allegations. Detroit Windsor Tunnel LLC wrote to the Tribunal to request that it be removed as a respondent on the basis that it falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction. The Tribunal also received a Request to Intervene by the Windsor Police Services (the "Windsor Police") on the basis that they were present during the May 10, 2008 incident involving the applicant and the Essex-Windsor EMS.

6In an Interim Decision dated August 6, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1223, the Tribunal ordered that Detroit Windsor Tunnel LLC be removed as a respondent and granted the Request to Intervene made by the Windsor Police. In an Interim Decision dated August 25, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1314, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for a Tribunal-ordered Inquiry. In an Interim Decision dated September 9, 2009, 2009 HRTO 1434, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision to grant intervenor status to the Windsor Police.

7On August 28, 2009, the applicant filed Application 2009-03353-I (the "August Application"), alleging that two institutional respondents, the Corporation of the City of Windsor (the "City of Windsor") and the Windsor Police, as well as three personal respondents, George Wilkki, counsel for the City of Windsor; Patrick Brode, counsel for the Windsor Police; and Jeffrey Dalpe, a Windsor Police Officer, discriminated against her in the area of services on the basis of place of origin, disability, age and reprisal or threat of reprisal. The August Application alleges that Officer Dalpe was present during the incident on May 10, 2008 (which is the subject of the February Application) when the applicant was taken by ambulance to Hotel Dieu Hospital. The August Application also raises concerns about the accuracy of the police report of the May 10, 2008 incident and whether this report should have been disclosed by the Windsor Police.

Hearing the Applications Together

8The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consolidate or hear two or more Applications together. This is expressly allowed for under Rule 1.7(d) of the applicable Tribunal Rules of Procedure. While the Tribunal has received no specific request to hear these Applications together, I have decided that it would be fair, just and expeditious to hear these two Applications together given the facts and issues common to both Applications.

Request to Remove Personal Respondents

9As part of their Response to the August Application, the respondents request that George Wilkki and Patrick Brode be removed as personal respondents. The respondents to the August Application submit that George Wilkki had no involvement whatsoever in the May 10, 2008 incident and that his only connection was that his name appeared as the City Solicitor on the letterhead in various documents disclosed by the City of Windsor and the Windsor Police. They further submit that Patrick Brode's involvement as counsel for the Windsor Police was to file a Request to Intervene on behalf of the Windsor Police which did not constitute a violation of the human rights of the applicant. The respondents do not seek to have Officer Dalpe removed as a personal respondent.

10The applicant opposes the removal of these respondents. In her Reply, the applicant submits that as George Wilkki has been acting on behalf of an institutional respondent, he should continue to remain a respondent and the decision as to whether he should be removed as a respondent should only be made at a hearing. The applicant's position in regards to removing Patrick Brode as a respondent is less clear although I infer from the general tenor of the applicant's response that she would similarly be opposed to his removal as a personal respondent.

11Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal's Rules affirms the Tribunal's power to "add or remove a party". The question of whether an individual is properly named as a personal respondent in a human rights application has been considered in a number of Tribunal decisions, including Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 and Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31. In Sigrist the Tribunal makes clear that the unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. In Persaud, the Tribunal identified a list of factors to consider when determining whether a personal respondent should be removed (para. 5):

1. Is there a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?

2. Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent's deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who is sought to be removed?

3. Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?

4. Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?

5. Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?

12Having considered the respondents' request in light of these factors I order that George Wilkki and Patrick Brode be removed as personal respondents to the August Application. I am satisfied that the applicant's complaint, as articulated in her Application, focuses on the conduct of the Windsor Police during the incident on May 10, 2008. I do not find that there are any allegations made in respect of the individual conduct of the personal respondents, George Wilkki and Patrick Brode. Neither counsel is referred to by name or title in the body of the Application. George Wilkki has no discernible connection to the March 10, 2008 incident. Mr. Brode may have prepared the Windsor Police's Request to Intervene but I am satisfied this was in his capacity as counsel and I cannot see how, if a violation of the Code was found, that he would be held personally liable. There is no compelling reason to keep George Wilkki or Patrick Brode as named respondents and no identified prejudice to the applicant to remove them.

13I am not seized of this matter.