Randy King v. MCI Medical Clinics Inc., 2013 HRTO 1284

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Randy King Applicant

-and-

MCI Medical Clinics Inc., Robert Carleton, James Roy and Sophie Ritchie Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: July 23, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1284 Indexed as: King v. MCI Medical Clinics Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Randy King, Applicant Self-represented

MCI Medical Clinics Inc., Robert Carleton, and Sophie Ritchie, Respondents Alex Van Kralingen, Counsel

James Roy, Respondent No one appearing

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability and reprisal.

2The applicant alleges that the respondents caused the applicant to be banned from the organizational respondent's facilities after he complained of misconduct by medical professionals who treated him in the organizational respondent's clinic. The applicant asserts that the respondents discriminated against him because they perceived him to suffer from a psychiatric condition.

3The Tribunal scheduled this matter for hearing in late August, 2013. However, the parties' submissions indicate that the applicant has filed complaints against the individual respondent, Sophie Ritchie or the organizational respondent's personnel with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario ("CPSO") and the College of Nurses of Ontario ("CNO"), and that proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board ("HPARB") have been initiated regarding the same alleged incidents that caused him to complain to the respondents. On the face of these submissions it also appears that the applicant's complaints to the Colleges and HPARB include allegations that the respondents subjected the applicant to discrimination because of disability in the provision of health care services.

4In an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, 2013 HRTO 669, the Tribunal advised the parties that it may be appropriate to defer or dismiss the Application, depending on the nature and outcome of the applicant's complaints to the two Colleges and to HPARB. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the parties to file all documents related to the applicant's complaints to the Colleges and the proceedings before the HPARB. The Tribunal indicated that it would provide further direction to the parties following receipt of these documents.

5The applicant complied with the Tribunal's direction as did the respondents MCI Medical Clinics Inc. ("MCI"), Robert Carleton, and Sophie Ritchie (henceforth "the MCI respondents"). The MCI respondents advised that James Roy is no longer associated with MCI Medical Clinics Inc. and is not represented by counsel for the MCI respondents. The MCI respondents delivered Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 669 to Mr. Roy, along with their submissions in response to the Tribunal's directions. The applicant also delivered his submissions to Mr. Roy. As of the date of this Interim Decision, Mr. Roy has not filed any submissions in response to Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 669.

College and HPARB Proceedings

6The documents disclosed by the parties indicate that the applicant made complaints to the CPSO and to the CNO, respectively against a physician, Dr. T., who treated the applicant at one of MCI's clinics and against three nurses working at the clinic, including the individual respondent, Sophie Ritchie. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committees ("ICRC") of the CPSO determined that it was appropriate to take no further action regarding the applicant's concerns about Dr. T. The ICRC of the CNO concluded that the information provided in each of the applicant's complaints did not provide a sufficient basis to support the allegations that the member nurses behaved inappropriately or breached any standards of the nursing profession. Accordingly, the ICRC concluded that no further action was required. The ICRC's report regarding Ms. Ritchie indicates that he alleged that Ms. Ritchie was responsible for having him banned from the clinic to punish him for filing an Application under the Code.

7The documents disclose that the applicant filed appeals to HPARB regarding the CPSO's decision regarding Dr. T. and CNO's decisions regarding Ms. Ritchie and the other two nurses. In his appeal regarding Dr. T., the applicant submitted to HPARB that "I now believe that Dr. T. discriminated against me by insisting that I be banned from the clinic."

Submissions

8The applicant submitted that the Colleges did not fully investigate his allegations regarding the respondents' decision to ban him from MCI's clinic. The applicant also submitted the Colleges cannot investigate the individual respondents James Roy and Robert Carleton, whom the applicant alleges were instrumental in banning him from the clinic. The applicant also submitted that the other personnel, including Dr. T., played a role in the discriminatory actions taken against him. The applicant therefore submitted that the Application should proceed.

9The MCI respondents submitted that the Tribunal should defer the Application, pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the HPARB. The MCI respondents submitted that there is significant overlap regarding the factual allegations made to the Colleges and his Application to the Tribunal. Specifically, the MCI respondents submitted that the applicant's complaint to the Colleges was that he was denied services because of a perceived mental health issue. The MCI respondents submitted that the HPARB shall be required to make factual determinations regarding many of the same issues in the Application, which raises the possibility of inconsistent decisions on fact or law if the proceedings run concurrently. The MCI respondents submitted that the Tribunal has frequently deferred applications where there are pending proceedings before the HPARB.

Decision

10The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the same parties are involved in other legal proceedings, see Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts, 2008 HRTO 287. Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are: the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them: see Calabria v. DTZ Barnicke, 2008 HRTO 411, and Kaj v. Orsini Bros. Inns, 2009 HRTO 170.

11The applicant is correct that the proceedings before the HPARB will not address all of the allegations in his Application but I am satisfied that the Application should be deferred pending the resolution of his appeals to HPARB. The allegations against Ms. Ritchie are essentially identical in both forums. Dr. T.'s conduct and whether it amounted to discrimination because of perceived disability is an issue before HPARB and the Tribunal. Consequently, there is significant overlap in the factual issues raised in the proceedings before the HPARB and the Tribunal, which raises the potential for inconsistent findings if the matters proceed concurrently.

12The Application shall be deferred pending the resolution of the applicant's appeals to HPARB. The hearing dates scheduled on August 26, 27 and 28, 2013 shall be cancelled.

13The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the HPARB proceedings.