Basic v. Royal Health Care Centre, 2011 HRTO 622

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: March 30, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 622

Indexed as: Basic v. Royal Health Care Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Zvonimir Basic, Applicant ) Self-represented

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”).

2By email correspondence dated March 4, 2011, the applicant requests that the Tribunal add three additional respondents to this Application. The applicant has asked that this email correspondence be accepted in lieu of a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings, due to “physical and mental disability” making it hard for him to file forms at this time. He sent a copy of this correspondence to the existing respondents, but not to the proposed respondents.

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated March 10, 2011, the applicant was directed to file any additional submissions he may wish to make on his Request to add the respondents, and to address how his allegations against these proposed respondents could support a finding that they violated the Code. The applicant sent submissions dated March 18.

4Assuming that there is a basis for waiving the Tribunal’s normal requirement that such a Request be made on the proper form, and that it be delivered to proposed respondents, the applicant has not shown a basis for the order sought and it is denied.

5In his email of March 4, the applicant states that he wishes to add a pharmacy and two individuals, who appear to be the senior pharmacist and managing pharmacist, as respondents to his Application. He states that his reason for seeking to add these parties is that he has been banned from the pharmacy. He states that he has been told he had become too difficult a client as a result of having to deal with numerous “requests and errors” on prescriptions made by the existing personal respondent, who was then “unreachable to correct the error.” In his submission of March 18, he states that

they are refusing to deal with me hence [banned] from the store because of Dr. Gidwani, again a service open to all so different treatment again [than] the rest of the public, clearly a violation of my Human Rights under the [C]ode.

6In a previous Interim Decision denying a previous request to add respondents to this Application, the Tribunal referred to the decision in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, in which it stated that when determining a request to add a respondent, the following three questions would be considered:

(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?

7The 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, at para. 5, 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.

8It is unnecessary to consider the second and third questions set out above. The applicant has failed to make any allegations that would support a finding that the proposed respondents have violated the Code. The reasons given by the applicant in support of his Request to add the respondents do not address any matters arising under the Code in relation to these proposed respondents. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into all claims of unfairness, but only those related to a social area covered by the Code, and based on an enumerated ground. The allegations do not relate to any of the grounds covered by the Code.

9The Request is accordingly denied.

10I am not seized of this matter.