Lemieux v. Guelph General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 567

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lydia Lemieux

Applicant

-and-

Guelph General Hospital, Audrey Henderson, Annette Harrington and Kaye Snowe

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 22, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 567

Indexed as: Lemieux v. Guelph General Hospital

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, dated June 29, 2009. The underlying human rights complaint (the complaint) was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on July 3, 2007. This Decision responds to a Request for Order During Proceeding filed by the applicant on March 21, 2011, seeking the deferral of the hearing of this case scheduled to begin on March 24^th 2011. The reasons for the Request are unclear and are set out here in detail:

Due to the fact that the [applicant’s] physical and psychological symptoms are worsened by stress and due the fact that her medical condition is still under investigation by medical professionals as to wither it is due to stroke or due to traumatic brain injury, I believe that this proceeding should be deferred until the cause of her sudden disabling medical condition is conclusively determined by medical professionals in fairness and justice to the [applicant] instead of allowing the respondents’ desire for expediency (sic) to be the primary concern.

2Although framed as a Request to defer it is really an adjournment request pending the determination of the applicant’s current medical condition. By way of background the claims of discrimination in this Application arose between August 2006 and January 19, 2007 when the applicant’s employment with the respondent hospital was terminated. The applicant’s current medical condition began to manifest itself in March or April 2007. The applicant believes that her current medical condition can be traced to the alleged violations of the Code by the respondents. As can be seen from the reasons provided for the applicant’s Request it remains unclear precisely what the genesis of her current difficulties was and there is to date no definitive diagnosis.

3The Request to defer or adjourn the hearing is denied. I am not satisfied that it would contribute to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this dispute to defer the hearing of the Application. The hearing has been bifurcated to deal first with liability and then if a violation of the Code is found, the appropriate remedies. The cause or causes of the applicant’s current medical condition, appearing as it did weeks or months after the applicant’s employment with the respondent was terminated may be relevant to the appropriate remedy, but it is not relevant to whether the respondents have violated the Code in the manner in which the applicant was treated during the period of her employment with the respondent hospital.

4Accordingly the Request to defer is denied at this stage and the hearing will proceed on March 24^th and 25^th 2011.

5I am seized of this Application.