HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Barbara Kueber
Applicant
-and-
The Corporation of the County of Grey, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Kueber v. The Corporation of the County of Grey
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Barbara Kueber, Applicant
Self-represented
The Corporation of the County of Grey, Respondent
Andrea M. Dedrick, Counsel
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, Minister of Community and Social Services and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Proposed Respondents
Zachary Green, Counsel
County of Bruce Social Services, Proposed Respondent
Tammy W. Grove-McClement, Counsel
County of Simcoe Social Services, Proposed Respondent
Peter Krysiak, Counsel
1The applicant filed this Application on August 15, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability.
2The original Application was filed against Grey County only. The Application stated that the applicant lives with multiple conditions, including a serious pain disorder for which the applicant is prescribed medical marihuana through a federal government program. The applicant alleged that the respondent’s refusal to cover the costs of medical marihuana is discriminatory given that the respondent provides coverage for other pain medication.
3On December 3, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), asking to amend her Application to include a number of additional respondents and to add a broad range of allegations.
4The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on February 4, 2013 noting that it was unclear from the applicant’s RFOP which of the several new allegations related to which of the proposed respondents. The CAD also noted that it was unclear which of the new allegations related to the original allegation of differential treatment with respect to medical marihuana coverage. The CAD stated that the Tribunal required clarification of the nature of the allegations in relation to the proposed respondents and the original Application. As a result, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a revised RFOP setting out the following:
a. The proper identity of each of the proposed respondents and their respective mailing and contact information;
b. Details of the new allegations, referencing which allegation relates to which specific proposed respondent; and
c. Details with respect to how the new allegations and the proposed respondents relate to the original allegation of differential treatment in medical marihuana benefits coverage.
5On February 7, 2013, the applicant filed a revised RFOP indicating that she seeks to add the following five new respondents: County of Bruce Social Services, County of Simcoe Social Services, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Province of Ontario.
6The applicant’s revised RFOP also sets out an array of new claims. It appears that the applicant seeks to amend the Application to include approximately 22 allegations regarding a range of issues, as well as seeks new remedial relief and interim relief. In summary, the new issues relate to the following diverse matters:
lack of availability of family physicians in the province;
barriers to receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits;
barriers to receiving Canada Pension Plan benefits;
privacy issues with respect to disclosure of personal information in applying for social benefits;
failure to establish minimum standards of care with respect to hospitals;
lack of emergency funding and medical treatment for persons with severe disabilities;
abuse of authority in the requirement to meet caseworkers on demand;
failure to properly fund medical travel, drinking water, allergy medication, multi-disciplinary pain management clinics, supplements, etc.; and
failure to provide timely monthly payments.
7The respondent Grey County denies the various allegations and opposes the applicant’s request to amend.
8The proposed respondents Bruce County and Simcoe County object to the requests to amend and deny all the allegations.
9The proposed respondents Province of Ontario, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ministry of Community and Social Services request that the applicant’s RFOP be dismissed on the basis that the applicant has commenced an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal, scheduled for July 11, 2013, and because the allegations have no reasonable prospect of success.
DECISION
Request to Add New Allegations
10Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended”.
11In determining requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the timing of the request to amend, and prejudice to the respondent. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926 and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.
12I am satisfied that the applicant should not be permitted to amend the Application to add the proposed allegations. The applicant appears to wish to expand the scope of her original Application to challenge the adequacy and delivery of health care and social services. The proposed allegations are very broad, encompassing a variety of topics and impugning a wide range of matters with respect to health care and social services at federal, provincial and municipal levels.
13The Tribunal’s CAD required the applicant to provide details in the revised RFOP regarding how the new allegations relate to the original Application; however, the applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction in this regard. Based on my review of the applicant’s RFOP, there appears to be minimal connection between the proposed allegations and the allegations of discriminatory experiences with respect to medical marihuana coverage as contained in the original Application.
14In my view, it would detract from the expeditious nature of the Tribunal process to permit the applicant to include numerous new allegations that not only expand the Application, but appear somewhat disconnected from the original allegation. Given the extensive and diverse nature of the proposed allegations and the applicant’s failure to explain in accordance with the CAD how the new allegations relate to the issue of medical marihuana coverage, the Tribunal denies the applicant’s request to amend the Application to add the proposed allegations.
Request to Add New Respondents
15With respect to the applicant’s request to add the proposed respondents Bruce County and Simcoe County, it appears the new allegations with respect to these two entities do not relate the original issue of medical marihuana coverage. In light of the above-noted decision to reject the proposed amendments, the applicant’s request to add the proposed respondents Bruce County and Simcoe County is therefore also denied.
16To the extent that the original Application deals with the issue of medical marihuana benefits coverage, the Tribunal will add Province of Ontario, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ministry of Community and Social Services (collectively “the Province”) as these entities do appear to be involved in the alleged concerns funding and eligibility of benefits coverage. The issues of collateral proceedings and reasonable prospect of success, as raised in the Province’s response to the RFOP, are matters that can be furtheraddressed in their Response(s).
17The Tribunal grants the applicant’s request to add the Province as respondents to the original Application. The Province points out that the proposed respondents were incorrectly identified in the RFOP. Accordingly, the Tribunal the style of cause will reflect the correct names.
Request for Interim Relief
18The applicant’s revised RFOP indicates that she is seeking interim relief; however, the applicant failed to provide any documentation or submissions in support of the interim relief in accordance with Rule 23.3. Nevertheless, given that the requests for interim relief are related to the proposed new allegations which have not been added, there is no basis for the interim relief being sought. As such, the applicant’s request for interim relief is denied.
ORDER
19The Tribunal orders as follows:
i. The Tribunal grants the applicant’s request to add the Province of Ontario, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ministry of Community and Social Services and will amend the style of cause to reflect their proper names;
ii. A copy of the Application will be delivered to the new respondents: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care;
iii. The new respondents are directed to file their Response(s) (Form 2) within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision;
iv. The applicant may file with the Tribunal, and copied to all respondents, a Reply within 14 days of receipt of the Response(s).
20I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 8^th^ day of May, 2013.
“Signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair