Barbara Kueber v. The Corporation of the County of Grey, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, 2013 HRTO 1728

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Barbara Kueber Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the County of Grey, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 11, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1728 Indexed as: Kueber v. Grey (County)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Barbara Kueber, Applicant Self-represented

The Corporation of the County of Grey, Respondent Andrea M. Dedrick, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, Minister of Community and Social Services and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Proposed Respondents Zachary Green, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on August 15, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability. The Application states that the applicant lives with multiple conditions, including a serious pain disorder for which the applicant is prescribed medical marihuana through a federal government program. The applicant alleged that the respondent Grey County’s refusal to cover the costs of medical marihuana is discriminatory given that the County provides coverage for other pain medication.

2By way of Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 762, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to add other counties and expand the scope of her Application to challenge the province’s delivery of health care services. The Tribunal ordered that the respondent Ministries be added as respondents to the extent that the applicant’s original allegations of differential treatment with respect to medical marihuana coverage.

3On September 18, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“request”) seeking disclosure of a variety of information and production of a broad range of documents, including the following:

i. The waiting times in the last 3 years for doctors in two different counties; ii. The number of patients in the last 3 years waiting for referrals to doctors and the average wait time; iii. The number of successful Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP) applicants whose forms were completed by walk-in physicians; iv. The number and percentage of ODSP applicants approved after their first application; v. The number and percentage of ODSP applicants approved after their second application; vi. The number and percentage of ODSP applicants approved on subsequent applications or appeals; vii. A copy of the complete procedure manual and any memorandums provided to ODSP caseworkers regarding handling, approving or denying applications; viii. The average wait time for someone to be approved for disability coverage from their first application; ix. The current payment and fee guidelines and information regarding any qualify standards and quality control measures set by provincial ministries regarding competence and compensation for physicians; x. The number of applicants in the last 3 years to Works that were provided with emergency funding and non-confidential details regarding those decisions; and xi. The number of people who have died in Ontario over the past 10 years while waiting for approval for disability coverage.

4The respondents filed submissions opposing the applicant’s request. The respondents submit that the applicant’s request relates to allegations which the Tribunal previously refused to add to the Application.

5In its earlier Interim Decision, the Tribunal noted that the applicant sought to expand the scope of her original Application to challenge the adequacy and delivery of health care and social services by seeking to include a variety of broad topics and impugning a wide range of matters with respect to health care and social services at federal, provincial and municipal levels. The Tribunal stated that it would detract from the expeditious nature of the Tribunal process to permit the applicant to include numerous new allegations that not only expanded the Application, but also appeared somewhat disconnected from the original allegation. The Tribunal refused the applicant’s request to amend the Application to include new allegations regarding health care delivery.

6I find that the Tribunal’s earlier reasoning also applies to the applicant’s current request for disclosure and production. The items sought by the applicant do not appear to relate to her allegations of differential treatment with respect to medical marihuana coverage, but rather appear to relate to concerns regarding the impact of provincial health care services and wait times on the efficacy of the ODSP process. Given that the documents sought by the applicant relate to topics which the Tribunal has refused to add to the Application, it is not appropriate to order production of the requested items.

7This is the Tribunal’s second notification regarding the scope of the Application and the allegations that constitute the subject-matter of the Application. The Tribunal directs the applicant to refrain from filing further requests regarding allegations that relate to topics which the Tribunal has determined will not form part of the Application.

8The applicant’s request for disclosure and production is denied.

9I am not seized.