Ceschin v. Singh, 2015 HRTO 1080

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chris Ceschin

Applicant

-and-

Artaj Singh

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: August 13, 2015.

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1080

Indexed as: Ceschin v. Singh

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Chris Ceschin, Applicant Self-represented

Artaj Singh, Respondent Fred W. Tranquilli, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent’s decision to withdraw his services as his doctor was a breach of the Code.

2The hearing of this Application is scheduled for November 9, 2015.

3On July 17, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order seeking production of the following documents from the respondent:

a. Data on the number of patients who remained and patients who were removed from the respondent’s patient roster each month during the months of January 2014 to October 2014.

b. Data on staff changes, turnovers or issues at the respondent’s clinic from January 2010 to December 2014.

c. Proof from the respondent that he had contacted the Ministry of Health to indicate that the applicant had been removed from his patient roster.

4The respondent opposes the request for “a” and “b” above on the basis that the data is not arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application. The respondent submits that the “Primary Care Request to Remove Patient Form” that was sent from the respondent to the Ministry of Health was produced to the applicant on June 30, 2015 and that there are no other documents related to this form having been submitted.

Analysis and Decision

Patient Roster

5At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal will order disclosure of documents if the requesting party establishes they are arguably relevant, i.e., that they may prove or disprove a relevant fact in issue in the dispute. The Tribunal may decline to order disclosure documents that are privileged or raise privacy concerns. See McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220. A finding that a document is arguably relevant does not imply that the document will actually be found to be relevant or admissible at a hearing.

6The applicant submits that the data on patients who remained and those who were removed from the respondent’s patient roster would allow him to know how many patients were added to the respondent’s roster after he was told that changes to the practice necessitated cutting back on the number of patients at the clinic.

7The respondent submits that the patient roster is not relevant as the respondent has never indicated to the applicant that he was ending their doctor-patient relationship due to capacity issues at his clinic.

8There is no indication in the documents filed that the respondent informed the applicant that he was reducing the number of patients in his clinic and that was the reason why he ended the relationship with the applicant. As the applicant stated in the Application, the letter he received from the respondent stated, “due to a change in our practice, we will no longer be able to provide you with medical care…” It appears that the applicant has inferred that “change in our practice” meant a reduction in the number of patients.

9Patients may be removed from a doctor’s roster for a great variety of reasons and doctors may have patients who remain on their roster even though they have not received treatment from that doctor for some time.

10Based on the materials before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the data on the number of patients the respondent added or removed from his patient rosters each month is relevant to the issue of whether the respondent’s decision to end the doctor-patient relationship with the applicant was a breach of the Code. In determining the issued raised in this Application, the Tribunal will need to examine the circumstances around the ending of the applicant’s doctor-patient relationship with the respondent. The circumstances around the adding or removing of other patients do not appear to be relevant to this issue.

Staff Changes

11The respondent alleges that some of the confusion and delay in having the applicant’s patient file transferred to a new doctor was due to staff changes.

12The applicant submits that knowing the number of staff of the respondent’s clinic who quit or were “let go” could potentially indicate that there are problems at the clinic and that the respondent is “too hard to deal with and no one wishes to stay there as an employee long-term”.

13The respondent submits that the respondent’s relationship with his staff is not relevant to the issue of whether the applicant experienced a breach of his Code rights when the doctor-patient relationship was ended by the respondent.

14I agree with the respondent that staff retention or turn-over is not arguably relevant to the issues raised in this Application. While “arguable relevance” may not be a high onus for the requesting party to satisfy, the requester must have a factual foundation to show the relevance of the sought-after material and the subject-matter of the application. The applicant cannot be permitted to engage in a “fishing expedition” to see whether there is some information that could potentially be helpful to his case.

Proof of Informing the Ministry of Health

15The respondent has indicated that a copy of the form used to inform the Ministry of Health that the applicant had been removed from the respondent’s patient roster has already been provided to the applicant and that there are no other documents in relation to this.

16This request for production has therefore already been fulfilled and does not need to be addressed by the Tribunal.

Order

17The applicant’s Request for production is denied.

18I am not seized.