Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Brenda Daugherty
Applicant
- and-
Miriam Nicholson
Respondent
Interim decision
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Daugherty v. Nicholson
1The purpose of this Case Assessment Direction is to address the applicant’s Request that medical information about the applicant be removed from the Response filed by the respondent.
2The respondent was the applicant’s family doctor for several years. She moved her practice to a different location. The applicant uses a motorized scooter and while the new building was accessible, the new examining rooms were not accessible. According to the respondent, the applicant cannot transfer from her wheelchair to the examining table without assistance, which she is unable to provide.
3The applicant alleges that Dr. Nicholson refused to renew prescriptions and refused to help her find a new doctor. The Response sets out a detailed explanation of Dr. Nicholson’s awareness of the applicant’s situation and includes information about her understanding of the availability of medical care that the applicant was receiving. It also sets out an explanation for why further renovation to accommodate the applicant would result in undue hardship. Some of these explanations include a discussion of some of the applicant’s medical history.
4The applicant filed a Reply in which she disputes some of the Response. She also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that the information about her medical condition be removed from the Response.
5The respondent filed a Response to the Request for an Order During Proceedings. The respondent notes that the applicant referenced medical information about herself in the Application, and that in order to make a full Response it was necessary for the respondent to also reference medical information about the applicant. The respondent submits that while a doctor is not generally permitted to disclose medical information about a patient without the patient’s consent, there are exceptions to this, including where the patient has made the doctor a party to a legal proceeding.
Order
6In my view, there is no basis to remove any of the information in the Response at this stage in the proceeding,
7The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging that Dr. Nicholson infringed the applicant’s Code-protected rights. Dr. Nicholson is entitled to make a full Response to set out her side of the story.
8The medical information in the Response is generally relevant to the allegations in the Application and does not include unnecessary detail or medical information that is not generally relevant to the allegations.
9The parties have not yet been required to exchange documents in this case and will not be required to do so until a hearing date has been set. The parties have agreed to try mediation and the Tribunal will schedule a date for mediation. Disclosure of relevant documents will be required if the Application proceeds, and any concerns about the disclosure of medical records can be reviewed at that time if necessary.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of March, 2012.
”signed by”____________
Brian Cook
Vice-chair