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
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
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.
2The applicant indicates that she lives with multiple conditions, including a serious pain disorder for which she is prescribed medical marihuana through a federal government program. The applicant alleges that the respondents’ refusal to cover the costs of medical marihuana is discriminatory given that the respondents provide coverage for other pain medication.
3On October 7, 2013, the applicant filed three Requests for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOPs”) asking the Tribunal to make the numerous orders involving various entities. The specifics of some of the applicant’s requests will be addressed later below.
4On October 11, 2013, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1728 stating at paras. 5-7, as follows:
[5] In 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.
[6] I 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.
[7] This 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.
5Recognizing that the applicant’s RFOPs were made prior to the Tribunal’s October 11, 2013 Interim Decision, the Tribunal reviewed and considered all of the RFOPs. However, given the above-noted Order, the Tribunal will not address the applicant’s various RFOPs which clearly relate to matters beyond the scope of the Application. In particular, the Tribunal will not deal with the applicant’s request regarding her relocation to Bruce County; her requests for video surveillance from Bruce County; and her request that Simcoe County and Bruce County alter her Ontario Works records.
6The applicant requests that the respondent Grey County be required to change her Ontario Works’ records to remove certain points in the “Planned Activities” document which the applicant perceives portray her as an uneducated drug addict. The applicant submits this document demonstrates the respondent’s bias towards her. The respondent Grey County submits that the applicant’s request is not relevant to the issue of the denial of medical marihuana benefits.
7Rule 1.7 states that the Tribunal may determine and direct the order in which issues in a proceeding, including issues considered by a party or the parties to be preliminary, will be considered and determined.
8I note that the hearing of this Application is scheduled for February 26 and 27, 2014. I find that the adjudicator overseeing the hearing of this Application will be better placed to consider the relevancy of the “Planned Activities” document, as well as whether the applicant’s request regarding the content of the records fits within the scope of the Application and, if so, the merits of the request. The applicant may renew this request at the hearing at which time the adjudicator may determine whether or not to consider the request.
9The applicant has requested production of all documents she executed on July 24, 2012. Although not entirely clear, it appears the applicant disputes that the respondent Grey County fully disclosed all of her Ontario Works records. The respondent Grey County submits that it is not aware, nor is it in possession of, any other documents that the applicant may have executed on July 24, 2012.
10The applicant does not provided specifics or the foundation for her claim that other documents in addition to the documents already disclosed were executed on July 24, 2012. The applicant simply makes a bald claim that a small fraction of the documents were provided by the respondent without providing any details or identification of the alleged missing materials. The applicant has failed to articulate why she believes other documents exist.
11Given the absence of sufficient particulars, I accept the respondent’s position that all documents have been provided.
ORDER
12The applicant’s RFOPs are denied. The applicant may renew her request regarding the “Planned Activities” document at the hearing on the merits of the Application.
13The Tribunal draw’s the applicant’s attention to the Order in the October 11, 2013 Interim Decision, requiring her to refrain from filing further requests regarding allegations outside the scope of the subject-matter of the original Application. If the applicant files any further requests regarding matters that relate to topics