HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kevin Knudsen Applicant
-and-
Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Dr. Robinson, Dr. Walsh, William Weiss, Rashmikant Desi, Paul Middlebrook, Angelo Iocca, Homayoun Khonsari, Alexander MacDougall, Matthew Weissbrod, R. Timpson, Grey/Bruce Health Services/Owen Sound Hospital, Grey/Bruce Sexual Health Unit, Grey/Bruce Health Services/Meaford Hospital, Royal Victoria Hospital, Collingwood General Marine Hospital, Simcoe Muskoka District Sexual Health Unit, Bay Centre for Birth Control, Eric Cohen, Anne Josuikas and Life Laboratories formerly MDS Laboratories Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Knudsen v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kevin Knudsen, Applicant ) Self-represented
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on October 6, 2010, alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services by the respondents, on the basis of association.
2In addition to the respondents listed in the style of cause, the applicant has included “urologist”, and “infectious disease specialist”. These are not included in the style of cause as this is insufficient information to identify any individual respondents.
3The applicant complains that from 1996 to 2006, various physicians failed to diagnose him properly. In 2006, he made a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the “College”). In January 2007, the Complaints Committee of the College advised the applicant that it intended to take no action. The correspondence to the applicant dated January 29, 2007 indicates that it related to his complaint against Drs. Khonsari, Wiess, Weisbrod, Timpson, Desai, Middlebrook, Iocca and Cohen. The College also noted that Dr. Walsh could not be identified and that Dr. MacDougall had retired.
4The applicant sought review of the decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”). It confirmed the decision of the Complaints Committee of the College. The applicant sought reconsideration of the HPARB decision, and, on September 1, 2009, the HPARB wrote a decision denying the request for reconsideration. The style of cause of the reconsideration decision indicates it relates to Drs. Desai, Iocca, Khonsari, Middlebrook, Timpson, Weisbrod and Weiss.
5In his Application, the applicant indicates that the date of the last event relating to the allegations in his Application was September 30, 2009, which he identifies as
that of my unacted upon opportunity to pursue and appeal the decision of the Health Professional Appeal and Review Board to decide against my appeal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario decision against my claim and complaint against all of the accompanying respondents to the Human Rights Tribunal.
6A Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) was issued by the Tribunal on December 7, 2010 indicating that it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for various reasons including delay.
7By way of response to the NOID, the applicant provided a list of doctors he indicates were listed in his complaint to the College. It includes all of the respondents he named in the Application, except for Dr. Robinson. He also included a history of his symptoms and medical care from 1995 to 2006, and submissions indicating his surprise and disappointment in having his complaint rejected.
DELAY
8Section 34 states, in part:
(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2
(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
9As stated by the Tribunal in Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241, “the Code requires an individual to act with all due diligence, and file their application within one year, when they may seek to pursue a human rights claim.” When filing outside this one year time limit, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the Tribunal with an explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner.
10Under section 34, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with a complaint filed more than a year after the incident, or the last incident in a series, unless it is satisfied that the circumstances in subsection 34(2) exist.
11The applicant bears the onus of proving that the delay was incurred in good faith and must provide a reasonable explanation as to why he did not pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner.
12While the applicant states that the last of the incidents complained of occurred on September 30, 2009, the date when his opportunity to appeal the HPARB’s decision expired, the date of the decision itself, September 1, 2009, is the date relevant to the issue of timeliness. I also note that though the decisions of the College and the HPARB deal only with complaints about individual doctors and neither appears to deal with a complaint about Dr. Robinson or Anne Josuikas, the applicant has not indicated any separate allegations after September 1, 2009 (or for that matter after September 30, 2009) regarding those individuals, or regarding the corporate respondents he has named. As noted above, he has indicated that the final incident about which he complains was the HPARB decision.
13The Application is filed outside the one year statutory time limit and I am not satisfied that the applicant was unable, for valid reasons, to pursue the allegations under the Code against the respondents and that the delay was incurred in good faith.
14Given my finding with respect to the timeliness of this Application, I have not found it necessary to address the other issues raised in the NOID.
15I find that the circumstances in subsection 34(2) do not apply to the facts before me. This Application cannot proceed under subsection 34(1) of the Code and is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of March, 2011.
”signed by”__________
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair