Thomas Caster v. Hearthstone Communities Services Ltd., 2013 HRTO 456

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Thomas Caster

Applicant

-and-

Hearthstone Communities Services Ltd., Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. and Halton Condominium Corporation No. 377

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Date: March 18, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 456
Indexed as: Caster v. Hearthstone Communities Services Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Thomas Caster, Applicant
D. Lex Arbesman, Counsel

Hearthstone Communities Services Ltd., Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. and Halton Condominium Corporation No. 377, Respondents
Firdaus Walele, Counsel

1This Decision is written further to my Decision dated January 22, 2013 (2013 HRTO 111), in which I dismissed all but one of the allegations raised in the Application in this matter.

2In my January 22, 2013 Decision, I addressed an allegation raised in the Application that on October 8, 2010, the respondent interfered with the applicant’s ability to obtain medical treatment for his leg ulcers, which are caused by his underlying diabetes.

3As stated in my January 22, 2013 Decision, the applicant’s allegation is that he was told by a CCAC nurse that she had been informed by Leanne Wallace, the Clubhouse Manager for the Hearthstone Club, about the bed bug infestation in the applicant’s unit, and that Ms. Wallace “had instructed her not to go into [the applicant’s] unit”. This is disputed by the respondents.

4As this allegation rests entirely upon what the applicant says he was told by this CCAC nurse, I required the applicant to obtain from this CCAC nurse a statement, in her own words, as to what evidence she would provide at any hearing regarding her interaction with Ms. Wallace on October 8, 2010, what Ms. Wallace said to her, and why she did not attend at the applicant’s unit to provide treatment at that time.

5On February 11, 2013, the applicant provided a signed statement from the CCAC nurse, which states:

I arrived at client’s residence for a previously scheduled visit. I had spoken with the client and arranged for a time of visit. Upon arrival, I requested for directions to his unit. I was told that I needed to speak with someone as there were safety concerns. I was directed to a room where I met with two ladies who told me that the client had a bed bug situation in his unit and that they had tried to get rid of it without success. I conferred with my superiors and was told to request a common / safe area where I could provide care. I returned to the ladies and was told that that was not possible as they did not want an outbreak in the facility. I again conferred with my superiors re: company protocol in such situations and followed directions. I called and informed client of situation.

6What is notable about this account is that the CCAC nurse does not confirm the applicant’s allegation that she was instructed by Ms. Wallace not to attend at the applicant’s unit. Rather, after being informed about the bed bug issue, the CCAC nurse states that she conferred with her superiors (who have no connection to the respondents) and requested a common or safe area where she could provide care. When told that this was not possible, the CCAC nurse again conferred with her superiors about company protocol in such situations. While not expressly stated by the CCAC nurse, it is implicit in her statement that any decision not to attend at the applicant’s unit at that time was made by her superiors, and not on the basis of any instruction given by Ms. Wallace denying access to the unit.

7While the statement of the CCAC nurse does state that she was denied the ability to treat the applicant in a common or safe area other than his unit, the issue under the Code would be whether this was a need arising from or relating to the applicant’s disability. There is nothing in the material to support this, particularly in light of the undisputed fact that another CCAC nurse did attend at the applicant’s unit later that day to provide the required treatment.

8Accordingly, the statement from the CCAC nurse does not support the allegation as raised by the applicant in his Application. As this is the only basis for this allegation, I find that the applicant does not have a reasonable prospect of successfully proving this allegation at a hearing.

9As a result, the Application is dismissed in its entirety.