M. Louise Bark v. Luigi Battel, 2010 HRTO 886

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

M. Louise Bark

Applicant

-and-

Luigi Battel

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 886

Indexed as: Bark v. Battel

1This Application, filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), involves allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability in the social area of services. The applicant self-identifies as having a disability and alleges that the respondent discriminated against her when he failed to answer questions on an appeal letter for the applicant’s workplace, told her that he would have to “seriously reconsider this doctor-patient relationship”, and subsequently terminated their relationship. The applicant alleges that it is difficult to find a new doctor because the community in which she lives does not have doctors accepting new patients.

2On January 15, 2010 the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Tribunal indicated that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it did not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal could resolve. Further, it indicated that a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The Tribunal requested that the applicant make written submissions responding to this issue and to describe how the respondent is alleged to have breached the Code. The Application was not sent to the respondent.

3The applicant filed submissions dated February 8, 2010 with the Tribunal. She submitted she was seeking accommodation in her workplace in the form of a fixed shift and that her employer would not accommodate that shift unless a doctor stated in medical documentation “the stress of trying to accommodate is too much for her”. The applicant stated that she wanted the respondent to write a letter in support of her accommodation request, but he refused to do so telling her that he could not write subjective statements about hours of transit, store hours or her ability to keep up. She questioned why he was able to write subjective statements about other issues, but not the ones that she wanted him to address in her letter of support. She alleged that his failure to write the letter of support resulted in the loss of her job and asked, “If the doctor can’t write these details in a medical, what other methods exist for a person with a disability to get the necessary accommodations so as to overcome barriers, and level the playing field?”

4The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. In services, those grounds are race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status and disability.

5In her Application and in her submissions the applicant self-identifies as having a disability. She provides a narrative of the accommodation she was seeking in the workplace and visits to the respondent’s office. While she alleges that the respondent refused to complete a letter of support for her workplace accommodation and subsequently terminated the doctor/patient relationship, she does not link this refusal to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code, in this case her disability.

6The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code and the Application is dismissed. In light of the dismissal of the Application, the Tribunal does not need to address the applicant’s Request to Expedite.