McNicol v. Leamington District Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 813

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Craig McNicol Applicant

-and-

Leamington District Memorial Hospital and Dennis Gray Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: April 13, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 813 Indexed as: McNicol v. Leamington District Memorial Hospital

Reasons for Decision

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the basis of sexual orientation contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application arises out of a domestic disturbance in which the applicant alleges he was assaulted by the father of his former boyfriend because of his sexual orientation. The application alleges discrimination by the police officers that responded to the scene of the disturbance and by the hospital he attended as a result of the injuries he sustained during the incident. He has also named the father of his former partner as a respondent.

2With regard to the allegations against the police, the applicant has only listed the two police officers allegedly involved in the incident as respondents to his Application. He has not provided first names for either of these officers and has spelled one officer’s surname differently in different parts of his Application. The applicant has been advised that he must obtain first names in order that the Application can be delivered to and proceed against these officers. Accordingly, the Application will not proceed against these individuals at this time. The applicant may deliver and file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking an order that the relevant police force provide the first names of the police officers he wishes to include as individual respondents to his Application.

3The applicant has filed a Request to Expedite the Application. When asked to indicate the urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application, he states “There is a great fear that my exfiance may die he tried to kill himself and is willing to do it again.” With respect to the harm that would result if the Request is denied, he indicates “It would be a deep scar in the Canadian Charter of Rights and equality to homosexuals”.

4The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide for applications to be dealt with in an expedited manner in urgent circumstances. Rule 21.1 provides that an applicant may request that the Tribunal deal with an application on an expedited basis in circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute. Rule 21.2 requires an applicant seeking an expedited application to identify any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application and the harm that would result if the request is denied.

5In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at para. 9 the Tribunal held that, for a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.

6Having reviewed the materials, I cannot conclude that this Request to Expedite meets the high threshold required by the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. Without questioning the sincerity or seriousness of the applicant’s concerns regarding his ex-partner, the applicant has failed to provide any explanation as to how processing this Application in a particularly rapid fashion would alleviate the potential that his former partner may attempt suicide.

7I find that the applicant has not identified truly urgent circumstances that might prevent the “fair and just resolution” of his Application on the merits if the proceedings are not expedited. The Request to Expedite is denied.

8The applicant has also filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry. It appears that the applicant is asking that the Ontario Human Rights Commission obtain “mug shots” taken of him by the Leamington police that will show the severe nature of the injuries he alleges he sustained in the incident giving rise to this Application.

9The Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is denied. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide for a process by which arguably relevant materials must be disclosed by parties to a proceeding, and by which an applicant can seek production of relevant records from non-parties, once a hearing has been scheduled.

10It is appropriate to set out further case management directions for this Application. The applicant has named the father of his ex-partner as a respondent. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the provisions of the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific social relationships such as the provision of goods, services and facilities. The Code does not regulate relationships between individuals which do not have a basis in one of these social areas. The Tribunal has stated that the relationship between spouses or between individuals and the parents of their spouse is not covered by the Code: see Patterson v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 1304 and Belso v. York Region Police, 2009 HRTO 757. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant may make written submissions as to why the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to proceed with his Application as against Dennis Gray. Dennis Gray is not required to file a Response to this Application unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

11I am not seized.