Griffith v. Hurst, 2012 HRTO 1180

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gwynfred Griffith Applicant

-and-

David Hurst, Maggie Lalande and Joyce Phillips Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Neil Griffith by his next friend Gwynfred Griffith Applicant

-and-

David Hurst, Maggie Lalande and Joyce Phillips Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: June 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1180 Indexed as: Griffith v. Hurst

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gwynfred Griffith, Applicant Self-represented

David Hurst, Maggie Lalande and Joyce Phillips, Respondents Denyse Boulet, Counsel

1These are two related Applications filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Applications relate to a visit made by the applicants to a medical office.

2Consideration of the Applications was deferred pending a resolution of proceedings underway before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”): 2011 HRTO 1019.

3On May 11, 2012, the applicant filed a Request to Reactivate the deferred Applications. He states that the HPARB matter has concluded and that HPARB directed the Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (“College”) to conduct a further investigation and reconsider its original decision. The applicant states that although the College has now conducted a further investigation, it has “failed to address the issues raised by the [HPARB] and me”. The applicant states that although the College’s decision is dated January 25, 2012, it was not sent to him until March 27, 2012.

4Counsel for the respondents has filed a Response to the Request, objecting to the reactivation because she states that the substance of the Applications has been addressed in another proceeding.

5While the respondent raises a serious issue as to whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, this is not a basis to deny the Request to Reactivate. I am satisfied that the other proceeding has reached its conclusion and, in the circumstances, that it is appropriate to reactivate the Application.

6The Tribunal will determine, as a preliminary issue, whether the Applications should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, which states:

The Tribunal may dismiss an Application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

7Section 43(2)1 of the Code provides that, where an application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Tribunal must provide the parties with an opportunity to make oral submissions before making a final determination of the Application.

DECISION AND NEXT STEPS

8The Request to Reactivate is granted.

9The Tribunal will schedule a half-day hearing by telephone conference in order to hear oral submissions from the parties on the following issue only: should the Applications be dismissed in whole or in part because their substance has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding?

10A Notice of Hearing will follow.

11In advance of the hearing, the parties may wish to consult the Tribunal’s decision in Paterno v. Salvation Army, 2011 HRTO 2298, available at www.canlii.org

12At least three weeks before the date of the preliminary hearing, any party wishing to rely on written materials (including case law) not already filed with the Tribunal must deliver such documents or information to the other party and file them with the Registrar.

13I am not seized.