August v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2013 HRTO 1724

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lisle August

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Respondent

AND BETWEEN

David Hodgson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: October 11, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1724

Indexed as: August v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lisle August and David Hodgson, Applicants

Kate Sellar, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Respondent

Matthew Horner, Counsel

1These Applications, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), allege discrimination with respect to the provision of services because of sex. The applicants maintain that the limited scope of coverage funded by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (“OHIP”) for in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) pursuant to O. Reg 552, s.24(1)(23) is discriminatory.

2Two other Applications (2009-03239-I and 2009-03240-I) are pending before the Tribunal which also challenge the validity of the scope of the Regulation. Those Applications have been joined and are further advanced in the Tribunal’s process than the Applications in this case, in that a schedule for production of documents and expert witness statements is being set, with the scheduling of hearing dates to follow.

3While there are differences in the underlying facts and in the remedies requested in the two sets of Applications, both have in common a challenge to the scope of OHIP coverage. The applicants in this case request that their Applications be deferred pending a determination of the Applications in 2009-03239-I and 2009-03240-I. The respondent consents.

4Given the common issue at the core of both sets of Applications, it is appropriate to defer these Applications pending a determination of 2009-03239-I and 2009-03240-I. To do so will minimise costs and uncertainty for the parties and makes the best use of Tribunal resources. In that regard I adopt the reasoning in Silveira v. Ontario (Minister of Government Services), 2011 HRTO 249 at paras. 8 - 9.

order

5These Applications will be deferred pending the finalisation of the Applications bearing Tribunal file numbers 2009-03239-I and 2009-03240-I.

6The parties are reminded of Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which these Applications may be brought back on after the finalisation of the Applications in 2009-03239-I and 2009-03240-I.