Puharich v. Hamilton (City), 2015 HRTO 1401

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Stanka Puharich Applicant

-and-

City of Hamilton Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: October 21, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1401 Indexed as: Puharich v. Hamilton (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stanka Puharich, Applicant

Dee Puharic, Representative

1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application on a preliminary basis because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2The applicant is an 89-year-old woman with disabilities. On August 1, 2014, she fell out of a stretcher when she was being brought to an ambulance by municipal paramedics.

3In the fall of 2014, the applicant filed a Statement of Claim against the City of Hamilton and the paramedics with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Superior Court”), which alleged that she suffered personal injuries as a result of their negligence on August 1, 2014.

4On July 2, 2015, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the City of Hamilton discriminated against her with respect to services because of disability and age. Specifically, she alleged that when municipal paramedics were taking her to an ambulance in a stretcher, they did not strap her in, and, as a result, she fell off and suffered numerous serious injuries. She also alleged that the City of Hamilton is prolonging the proceeding and refusing to settle her claim before the Superior Court because they know that she is disabled and elderly, and they will not have to pay her if she dies.

5On August 14, 2015, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which informed her that the Application appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it does not appear to allege discrimination with respect to any of the social areas identified in the Code. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions responding to this issue.

6On August 20, 2015, the applicant filed written submissions, which stated that her Application should not be dismissed because the City of Hamilton and the Superior Court are violating her right to life and access to health care by delaying a resolution of her claim before the Superior Court.

7Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Rule 13.2 further states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application. The Notice is only sent to the applicant, and requires him or her to file written submissions. Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within its jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Morin c. Alliance de la fonction publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58; and Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63.

8In my view, it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because, although the applicant is using the word “discrimination”, she is not actually alleging that the City of Hamilton discriminated against her with respect to services because of disability and age. Rather, she is alleging that the City of Hamilton acted negligently towards her, which resulted in personal injuries, and that the City of Hamilton and the Superior Court are denying her a remedy by failing to resolve her civil claim in a timely manner.

9The Application is dismissed.