Basic v. Home Medical Equipment, 2011 HRTO 724

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Zvonimir Basic Applicant

-and-

Home Medical Equipment Ltd. and Don Hovis Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: April 14, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 724 Indexed as: Basic v. Home Medical Equipment

APPEARANCES BY

Zvonimir Basic, Applicant (Self-represented) Home Medical Equipment and Don Hovis, Respondents (Norman Ronski, Counsel)

1This Interim Decision deals with an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against him in services based on disability in the course of a transaction to purchase a scooter.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated September 29, 2010, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held, pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The respondents have not been required to file a Response but were required to "disclose a copy of any reports or notes in [their] possession about the incident alleged by the applicant, or indicate that [they] do not have any such documents." The respondents did not file any documents, taking the position that documents relevant to the incident alleged by the applicant were not "reports or notes".

3The summary hearing was held on March 2, 2011 by telephone conference call. The applicant participated and was self-represented. The respondents were represented by counsel but did not otherwise participate in the summary hearing.

Background

4The applicant uses a scooter for mobility. The corporate respondent sells medical equipment, including scooters. The personal respondent is the corporate respondent's sales manager.

5In the Application, the applicant described the circumstances that gave rise to the Application in the following terms:

On or about September 20, 2009 Zvonimir Basic "Basic", the applicant, was looking at buying a Medical Scooter and came across the dealership HME Mobility Ltd.... and decided this was the dealer the applicant wished to do a deal with. On or around September 21, 2009 a Sales representative from HME attended the home of the applicant to trial medical scooters at this time the applicant provided HME with funds to buy a scooter, on or about September 28, 2009 the applicant had not received his scooter yet and at this time was getting upset as HME had Basic's money and in my respectful submission took advantage of Basic by holing the money for at least 7 days finally on September 28, 2009 [the funds] were returned to Basic. Basic was then advised that HME wanted nothing to do with Basic and refused to sell Basic a scooter reasons were never provided.

The Summary Hearing

6During the summary hearing, the applicant added more details about his understanding of what transpired in regard to his attempts to buy a scooter from the corporate respondent.

7The applicant said that when the sales person came to his home, he brought a scooter that was the model the applicant wanted. However, the scooter was blue and he wanted a red one. He gave the sales person a cheque and cash to cover the cost of the scooter. Over the following few days, the applicant had a number of telephone conversations with the personal respondent. The applicant alleges that during one of these conversations, he disclosed to the personal respondent that he has some mental health issues. The applicant alleges that in a subsequent conversation, the personal respondent informed the applicant that he had been speaking with a representative from a different supplier of medical equipment who had a history with the applicant. The applicant alleges that the personal respondent told him that the respondents were not prepared to do business with him, based on the information provided by this person.

8It appears that the applicant is alleging that his disclosure of his mental health issues played a role in the respondent's decision to no longer sell him the scooter and this constitutes discrimination contrary to the Code.

9Counsel for the respondents advised that he was not aware of any of these additional allegations. He could not respond because he was participating in the summary hearing alone without the personal respondent and without any advisor from the corporate respondent. He said that his understanding was that the respondents returned the applicant's money within a few days of the initial contact because it appeared that they would be unable to provide the applicant with the scooter he wanted within the time he wanted it.

Decision

10The determination that a summary hearing was appropriate in this case was based only on the information contained in the Application. During the summary hearing, the applicant provided further details in respect to his allegations of discrimination which were not apparent from the Application and that provide a theory that potentially shows a link between the events and the applicant's disability.

11The purpose of a summary hearing is to determine if the Application should be dismissed because there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. If the Application is not dismissed following a summary hearing, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. In this case, I am not satisfied that the Application can be dismissed on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect of success. This does not mean that I am making a finding that the Application will succeed or that there is a reasonable prospect that it will succeed. It only means that the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

12The applicant must set out in writing the additional issues and allegations raised during the summary hearing and provide it to the Tribunal and the respondents within 14 days of this Interim Decision. The respondents then must file a Response to the Application and any additional issues and allegations set out by the applicant within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. Pursuant to the earlier Case Assessment Direction, the respondents must file any documents pertaining to their interactions with the applicant in September 2009.