C.V. v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 2015 HRTO 1331

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.V.

Applicant

-and-

Mount Sinai Hospital (aka Sinai Health System)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: October 6, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1331 Indexed as: C.V. v. Mount Sinai Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

C.V., Applicant Amir Attaran, Counsel

Mount Sinai Hospital (aka Sinai Health System), Respondent Katherine M. Pollock, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her because of family status and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her by refusing to provide her with a certain medical service.

2The Tribunal issued its Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) on August 4, 2015. The Notice informed the parties that the hearing of this Application was scheduled for February 8 and 9, 2016, in Toronto.

3On August 7, 2015, the applicant emailed the Registrar to request that the location of the hearing be moved from Toronto to Ottawa. The applicant indicated that she has a toddler in preschool and is due to deliver another child in December 2015. She stated that travelling to Toronto would require her older child to be pulled from school and would require a difficult journey and tiring journey with a newborn.

4The respondent opposed a hearing in Ottawa on the basis that the alleged discrimination occurred in Toronto, and respondent’s counsel and witnesses are all located in Toronto.

5After some correspondence back and forth between the parties which left the date and location of the hearing in limbo, on September 30, 2015, the respondent advised the Tribunal that it was no longer available on February 8 and 9, 2016. As a result, the Tribunal cancelled the February 8 and 9, 2016 dates and directed that the hearing would be rescheduled once the issue of venue had been decided.

6As explained in the Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Hearings in Regional Centres”, the Tribunal schedules hearings in the following regional centres: Toronto; Kingston; London; North Bay; Ottawa; Sarnia; Sault Ste. Marie; St. Catharines; Sudbury; Timmins; Thunder Bay; and Windsor.

7The Tribunal may hold hearings in locations other than the ones listed above in order to accommodate Code-related needs or other needs of the parties or their witnesses. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction notes that requests for a change in location should be made in writing to the Registrar as soon as possible.

8The Tribunal has a standard approach of convening hearings in the closest regional centre to the location of the alleged discrimination.

9The parties are at odds on the question of the location of the alleged discrimination. The respondent takes the position that the alleged discrimination took place in Toronto where the respondent that allegedly refused a service to the applicant is located. The applicant takes the position that alleged discrimination occurred in Ottawa where she was located at the time when her doctor advised her that she could not receive the service she was requesting from the respondent.

10I find that the alleged discrimination in this matter occurred in Toronto. In the correspondence between the respondent and the applicant’s doctor it is indicated that the applicant “wishes to have the procedure done in Toronto” and that is why she was making the request of the respondent located in Toronto. The applicant therefore sought and was refused services in Toronto. The location that she was in when she found out about this denial is irrelevant.

11I have considered the applicant’s submission made by email on October 5, 2015 that the respondents’ decision to remove one of its previously listed witnesses diminishes the nexus to Toronto. I have also considered her submission that travelling to Toronto may cause added difficulty to the applicant. I find that these are not sufficient reasons to hold the hearing in Ottawa.

ORDER

12The applicant’s request that the hearing be held in Ottawa is denied.

13The Registrar shall issue a Notice of Hearing for two consecutive dates in Toronto.

14I am not seized.