Randy King v. MCI Medical Clinics Inc., 2013 HRTO 669

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Randy King

Applicant

-and-

MCI Medical Clinics Inc., Robert Carleton,

James Roy and Sophie Ritchie

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: April 22, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 669

Indexed as: King v. MCI Medical Clinics Inc.

APPEARANCES

Randy King, Applicant

Self-represented

MCI Medical Clinics Inc., Robert Carleton, James Roy and Sophie Ritchie, Respondents

Robert Carleton, Representative

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 and reprisal. The applicant alleges that the respondents caused the applicant to be banned from the organizational respondent’s facilities because they perceived him to suffer from a psychiatric condition. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a disclosure request made by the applicant and to direct the parties to provide information regarding proceedings apparently in progress before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, College of Nurses of Ontario and/or the Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board (“HPARB”).

2The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) on March 13, 2013, seeking an order requiring the respondent to comply with Rule 16.1, which requires disclosure of arguably relevant documents. The applicant also specifically requested disclosure of any letters that would show the applicant engaged in harassment of the respondents or of the organizational respondent’s employees.

3The respondents responded to the Request by letter dated March 25, 2013. In that letter, the respondents provided copies of two documents they state they will be submitting in this case.

DECISION

4Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures states as follows:

Not later than 21 days after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, each party must deliver to every other party (and file a Statement of Delivery):

a list of all arguably relevant documents in their possession. Where a privilege is claimed over any document the party must describe the nature of the document and the reason for making the claim; and,

a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed.

5The deadline for compliance with Rule 16.1 was March 8, 2013 and was set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, dated February 15, 2013. The applicant complied with Rule 16.1 on March 8, 2013. Rule 16.1 requires disclosure of all arguably relevant documents, i.e., documents which may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute, and not only the documents upon which the parties intend to rely. Examples of arguably relevant documents include, but are not limited to, e-mail messages, correspondence, notes or memoranda touching on the subject matter of an application. Arguably relevant documents may not in fact be relevant or admissible in a hearing.

6It is not clear on the face of the respondents’ response to the Request that the respondents have complied with their obligations under Rule 16.1. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to search their records for any arguably relevant documents and to disclose any such documents to the applicant.

Concurrent Proceedings

7The parties’ submissions indicate that the applicant has filed complaints against the respondents or the organizational respondent’s employees with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the College of Nurses of Ontario, and that proceedings before the HPARB have been initiated regarding the same alleged incidents that form the basis for this Application. On the face of these submissions it also appears that the applicant’s complaints to the Colleges and HPARB include allegations that the respondents subjected the applicant to discrimination because of disability in the provision of health care services.

8The Tribunal does not have exclusive jurisdiction regarding the enforcement of the Code. See, Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), 2006 SCC 14, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513. Pursuant to section 45 of the Code and Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues. Pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, the Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application. In College of Nurses v. Trozzi, 2011 ONSC 4614 (Div. Ct.), the Division Court confirmed that HPARB is an adjudicative body with the authority to address Code issues.

9Consequently, it may be appropriate to defer or dismiss the Application, depending on the nature and outcome (if any at this point) of the applicant’s complaints to the two Colleges and to HPARB. In these circumstances, the Tribunal directs the applicant and respondents to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the other parties all documents related to the applicant’s complaints to the Colleges and the proceedings before the HPARB.

ORDER

10The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents shall search their records for any arguably relevant documents, including e-mail messages, correspondence, notes or memoranda, and shall deliver any such documents to the applicant. The respondents shall confirm delivery of these documents to the Tribunal by filing a Form 23;

2. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the parties shall file with the Tribunal and deliver to the other party all documents in their possession regarding the applicant’s complaints to the College of Physician and Surgeons of Ontario, the College of Nurses of Ontario and proceedings before the HPARB arising out of the facts alleged in this Application, including but not limited to the complaints to each College or HPARB, any referral to HPARB, any responses from either College or HPARB, correspondence with either of the Colleges or HPARB and any reports or decisions from either of the Colleges or HPARB.

11The Tribunal shall provide further direction to the parties after receiving the documents described in paragraph 10(2), above.