Desbiens v. Chaker, 2013 HRTO 1837

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

K. David Simpson on behalf of Robert Desbiens

Applicant

-and-

Ahmad Chaker and George Musgrove

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: October 31, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1837

Indexed as: Desbiens v. Chaker

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

K. David Simpson on behalf of Robert Desbiens, Applicant

Self-represented

Ahmad Chaker and George Musgrove, Respondents

Sandra G. Drozd, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application was filed under s. 34(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), by David Simpson (the “applicant”) on behalf of Robert Desbiens (the “claimant”). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request to reactivate this deferred Application.

Background

3This Application was previously deferred on consent pending completion of related proceedings that the applicant brought against Dr. Ahmad Chaker, who is named as an individual respondent in this Application, before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”). Dr. George Musgrove was not named as an individual respondent in this Application at the time.

4On November 14, 2012, the respondents at that time, Dr. Chaker and Dr. Dumaresq Child, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP’) to reactivate the Application.

5On December 6, 2012, the applicant filed both a Request to Withdraw the Application, as against Dr. Child, and an RFOP to amend the Application, indicating that he wished to amend the Application to name Dr. Musgrove as an individual respondent, instead of Dr. Child. In correspondence attached to the RFOP, the applicant explained that he wished to amend the Application by substituting Dr. Musgrove as an individual respondent, instead of Dr. Child.

6By Interim Decision dated February 21, 2013, 2013 HRTO 297, the Tribunal: reactivated the Application and added Dr. Musgrove as an individual respondent to the Application; removed Dr. Child as an individual respondent to the Application; and, again deferred the Application, pending the completion of an HPARB proceeding involving Dr. Musgrove.

RFOP TO REACTIVATE

7On April 29, 2013, the respondents advised the Tribunal that the HPARB proceeding concerning Dr. Musgrove was disposed of, and that they wished to proceed with a summary hearing in this matter. The respondents were advised by the Tribunal that it was necessary to file both an RFOP to reactivate the deferred Application, and a Request for Summary Hearing (Form 26). The respondents filed an RFOP to reactivate the Application on August 1, 2013, indicating that they had now received a copy of the HPARB decision, that the applicant had not sought judicial review, thereby ending the HPARB matter, and that they would like to proceed with a summary hearing. A copy of the HPARB decision dated April 18, 2013 was also provided to the Tribunal.

8While the respondents also indicated in separate correspondence dated August 2, 2013, that they next intended to request a summary hearing, it appears that the respondents have not filed a Request for Summary Hearing (Form 26) to date.

9The applicant appears to be in agreement with the respondents’ request to reactivate, as he subsequently indicated that this matter needs to proceed to a hearing.

10In my view, the requirements for reactivation under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure have been substantially complied with and it is appropriate that this Application be reactivated in the circumstances. The RFOP to reactivate the Application is therefore granted.

11In its earlier Interim Decision dated February 21, 2013, the Tribunal indicated that, should the parties reactivate the Application, the Tribunal would establish deadlines for the filing of amended pleadings by the parties. As such, the applicant is directed to file amended pleadings to reflect the amendment that was granted to add Dr. Musgrove as an individual respondent to the Application, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The respondents may file an amended Response within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

12I am not seized.