HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zvonimir Basic

Applicant

-and-

Royal Health Care Centre and Andy Gidwani

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: February 24, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 421

Indexed as: Basic v. Royal Health Care Centre

1This is an Application filed on August 31, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings, seeking to add an additional respondent.

2The applicant requests an order adding Naveed Nawab as a respondent to the Application. In support of his Request, he states that he “always had a feeling Dr. Gidwani [terminated] treatment because of Dr. Nawab”. He relies on a paragraph in the Response filed by the respondent Andy Gidwani, referring to a conversation between the applicant and Dr. Gidwani. The applicant states that “this is enough to open the door to have Dr. Nawab add to this Complaint.”

3Both Andy Gidwani and Naveed Nawab have filed submissions opposing the Request. Among other things, the proposed respondent refers to the terms of releases signed by the applicant dated August 27, 2009, and November 20, 2009, in relation to a civil action and Tribunal Application filed by the applicant against Dr. Nawab.

4Dr. Nawab submits that there is no basis to add him as a respondent, and that the attempt to add him as a respondent to this Application is an attempt to circumvent the purpose and spirit of the releases and is vexatious.

DECISION

5It is unnecessary to decide whether the applicant is barred from seeking to add Dr. Nawab as a respondent by the releases he signed. On my review of the material, I find no basis to add him as an additional respondent.

6The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:

(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

The application of the first stage involves considering whether there are allegations made in the Application that could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. At the second stage, the Tribunal applies the factors set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, [2008 HRTO 31](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/31), at para. [5](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/31), which focus principally on whether there is an organization that is part of the proceeding, which is able to take responsibility for the conduct, and whether the conduct of the individual respondent is a central issue in the proceedings. The factors from Persaud, supra, are applicable to both requests to add individual respondents and requests to remove them. At the third stage, the Tribunal may consider a variety of factors, including the effects on the hearing process of adding the proposed respondent, the reasons the proposed respondent was not named in the Application or Response, and prejudice to the other parties.

7This Request can be determined on the basis of the first question set out in Smyth above.

8The Request contains no allegations that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. In this Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent physician terminated the physician/patient relationship due to the applicant’s disability and sexual orientation contrary to the Code. He makes no allegations against the proposed respondent. The only basis for the applicant’s Request is a statement made in the Response of Dr. Gidwani. The statement does not contain any assertions that could lead to a finding of liability on the part of the proposed respondent. The fact alone that the proposed respondent is referred to in this Response does not provide a basis for the Request, in the absence of any allegations that could support a finding of a violation of the Code.

9The Request is accordingly denied. Given the consent of the parties to mediation, the Tribunal will schedule mediation in this matter.

10I am not seized of this matter.