Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Mahwish Aurangzeb Applicant
-and-
Dr. Hanna Erez Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: May 1, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 712 Indexed as: Aurangzeb v. Dr. Erez
APPEARANCES
Mahwish Auranzeb, Applicant Self-represented
Dr. Hanna Erez, Respondent Fred Tranquilli, 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, age and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The Application
2The respondent was the paediatrician for the applicant's family. The applicant's second son was born on February 8, 2009. The respondent attended at the hospital the following day to perform a post-natal check on the child and indicated that all was well. The applicant returned home with her son, but after a few days noticed that his eyes continued to be hazy. The applicant therefore brought her son to the respondent to check his eyes. According to the applicant, the respondent was unable to diagnose the issue with her son's eyes and referred them to Sick Kids' Hospital. At Sick Kids' Hospital, the applicant's son was diagnosed with Peter's Anomaly, a genetic disorder. The applicant states that her son will require several surgeries and corneal transplants. The applicant states that her family was devastated by the news and very angry with the respondent for not identifying her son's condition when she first examined him.
3The applicant states that her son did in fact undergo several surgeries and her children continued to be the respondent's patients. The applicant states, however, that the respondent did not treat her family in the same manner as previously, although they did not file a complaint against her for missing her younger son's condition.
4The applicant states that on or about June 6, 2011, she had an appointment with the respondent for her sons. The appointment was scheduled for 4 p.m. and the applicant and her family arrived at the clinic at 3:30 p.m. As it happened, however, the applicant and her family were not called in to see the respondent until about 5 p.m. In the meantime, the applicant observed the respondent laughing and talking with the other patients. The applicant asked the respondent to examine her elder son first, as his teeth were not coming out. Shortly after the respondent began examining the applicant's elder son, a young woman came into the examination room and motioned for the respondent to come outside. The respondent quickly grabbed her bag and left the room and did not return. The applicant and her family initially believed that the respondent would return until they saw the respondent in the parking lot through the window in the examination room. They observed her in the parking lot with the young woman who called her out of the examination room, smiling and apparently content. The respondent departed, but the applicant and her family could not believe that she had just left them and remained in the examination room. After about 15 minutes, the receptionist came in and informed them that the respondent had been called to the hospital to address an urgent matter. The applicant asserts that she "knows for a fact" that the respondent does not want to treat her younger son.
Summary Hearing
5By Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") dated July 12, 2012, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application because it has no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal noted that the Tribunal does not have a general power to deal with allegations of unfairness and that an applicant must be able to show a link between a respondent's alleged actions and one or more prohibited ground of discrimination. The Tribunal held the summary hearing on February 5, 2013 by teleconference.
Applicant's Submissions
6The applicant restated the facts set out in the Application, but also submitted that the respondent was no longer proactive in scheduling appointments for her children, as she had been, after her younger son was diagnosed with Peter's Anomaly. For example, the respondent did not follow up regarding her son's condition after surgeries or inquire regarding his allergies. The applicant stated that they hardly saw the respondent between 2009 and 2011. The applicant submitted that the respondent did not want to see her children anymore, despite their increased need for a paediatrician, given her younger son's condition.
7On June 6, 2011, the applicant had two concerns she wished to discuss with the respondent. Her younger son was scheduled for another surgery in the near future and intended to speak to the respondent about vaccinating him to prevent post-operative illnesses. The applicant was also concerned about her elder son's teeth, as noted above. The respondent was examining the elder son's mouth when a young woman came in and gestured for the respondent to leave. The respondent left very quickly without offering any explanation, while the applicant's son sat with his mouth open expecting the respondent to resume the examination. The applicant and her family observed the applicant in the parking lot with the same young woman and they go into a car and left. The applicant submitted that the respondent seemed fine and healthy. After about 15 or 18 minutes