Francis v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1112

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Francis

Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 29, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1112

Indexed as: Francis v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

1The complaint alleged discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), in the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

Claims re. chronic constipation, hepatic disorder, food allergies, milk, eggs and soy and dysphagia

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated April 3, 2014, the complainant was directed to provide material and submissions by May 16, 2014 in support of the following claims in his complaint: chronic constipation, hepatic disorder, food allergies, milk, eggs and soy and dysphagia. The Case Assessment Direction advised the complainant that if he did not provide these materials his claim would be dismissed as abandoned.

3The complainant has not filed any materials nor communicated with the Tribunal in any manner about the above claims. Therefore the claims in relation to chronic constipation, hepatic disorder, food allergies, milk, eggs and soy and dysphagia are dismissed as abandoned.

Claim re Cardiovascular disease

4Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission have advised the Tribunal that they are no longer assisting the complainant with his complaint respect to the following condition:

• cardiovascular disease

5If the complainant wishes to pursue the claim in relation to this condition, he must do the following:

1. Prepare a letter that explains why the claim in relation to this condition fits within the test set out in the Tribunal's special diet case law by answering the following questions:

a. What are the modifications to a regular health diet required by the condition?

b. Under the test for discrimination set out in the Tribunal's special diet caselaw, it is necessary to show that there is a general recognition in the Ontario medical community that modifications to a regular healthy diet are required to treat the medical conditions for which the complaint is claiming a special diet allowance. What evidence do you have to show that there is general recognition in the Ontario medical community that these modifications to a regular healthy diet should be made because of the condition?

c. If the condition is not on the special diet schedule, on what basis do you allege, and what evidence will you use to show, that this modified diet leads to extra food costs as compared with a regular healthy diet for a person without the condition?

d. If the condition is on the special diet schedule and you allege that the funding provided is significantly below the additional costs of the required modified diet, explain the basis of this claim and the evidence you will use to support it.

e. Does the complainant already receive special diet funding for the required dietary modifications due to an overlapping condition?

2. Obtain materials (for example, letters from health care professionals, medical literature) that the complainant will use to support the claim.

3. Send the letter and a copy of the materials referred to above to the Tribunal's Registrar-Transition:

Registrar-Transition Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay St., 14th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2A3 Fax: 416-314-8743 E-mail: hrto.registrar-transition@ontario.ca

and to counsel for the respondent:

Dan Guttman Ministry of the Attorney General Constitutional Law Branch 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Fax: 416-326-4015 E-mail: daniel guttman@ontario.ca

ORDER

6The complainant's claims in relation chronic constipation, hepatic disorder, food allergies, milk, eggs and soy and dysphagia are dismissed as abandoned.

7If the complainant does not provide the materials directed in para. 5 above by September 12, 2014, the complainant's claim with respect to cardiovascular disease will be dismissed as abandoned.

8This Interim Decision does not affect the complainant's claims regarding food allergies-wheat, hyperlipidemia, hypertension and renal failure which remain the subject of settlement negotiations between the parties.