Aurelia v. Grand River Hospital, 2013 HRTO 1909

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stina Aurelia Applicant

-and-

Grand River Hospital Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: November 19, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1909 Indexed as: Aurelia v. Grand River Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stina Aurelia, Applicant Self-represented

Grand River Hospital, Respondent Daphne Jarvis and Kate Dearden, Counsel

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.

Background

2The applicant, who indicates that she suffers from significant mental health issues, alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of her disability in when she was hospitalized at the respondent hospital and described incidents dating back to 2003. The respondent denies violating the applicant’s Code rights and that it was responsible for the acts alleged to amount to discrimination.

3In Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1505, the Tribunal noted that it appeared that the applicant has also filed complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons (the “College”) regarding some of the incidents involved in her Application. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the parties to file and deliver written submission regarding whether the Tribunal should defer this Application pending completion of the applicant’s complaints to the College related to this matter, including any documents in their possession related to such complaints.

Submissions

4Both parties filed submissions, but the applicant’s submissions do not address the issue of deferral. The respondent submitted that there is virtually complete overlap between the factual and legal issues in the Application and the complaints before the College. Specifically, the applicant disputes the medical care she received from February 21 to March, 2012 and from March 15 to April 3, 2012, which was delivered by doctors against whom she complained to the College. The respondents submitted that allowing the Application and the College complaint to proceed in parallel would result in duplicative proceedings dealing with similar factual issues and it would be highly likely to result in inconsistent findings of fact.

Decision

5The 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.

6The materials filed with the Application indicated that the applicant complained to the College about the treatment she received at the respondent hospital in February and March 2012, which is also an issue in the Application. While I appreciate that the incidents alleged to have occurred in this period make up only part of the applicant’s Application, I am satisfied that the Application should be deferred pending completion of the applicant’s complaint to the College. There is significant overlap in the factual issues raised in the proceedings before the College and the Tribunal, which raises the potential for inconsistent findings if the matters proceed concurrently.

7The Application shall be deferred pending the resolution of the applicant’s appeals to the College.

8The 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.

9I am not seized.