Chris Ceschin v. Artaj Singh, 2015 HRTO 1648

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chris Ceschin Applicant

-and-

Artaj Singh Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: December 4, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1648 Indexed as: Ceschin v. Singh

APPEARANCES

Chris Ceschin, Applicant Self-represented

Artaj Singh, Respondent Fred Tranquilli, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

2The applicant alleges that the respondent, who is a physician, discriminated against him based on his disability by failing to refer him to a specialist when requested, removing him from his patient roster, and in the manner in which his medical files were transferred to the applicant's next physician.

3The respondent denies discriminatory conduct and seeks dismissal of the Application.

4A one-day hearing into this matter was scheduled to be held in St. Catharines, Ontario, on November 9, 2015. Following opening submissions, the Tribunal directed that the parties make submissions on whether all or part of the Application should be dismissed on the basis that the Application did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

5The summary hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The issue in a summary hearing is whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

6In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, the Tribunal provided the following guidance:

In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.

In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.

7As the Tribunal explained further in Forde v. Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389 at para. 17:

The Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness. For an Application to continue in the Tribunal's process, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code or the intention by a respondent to commit a reprisal for asserting one's Code rights.

8In Pellerin v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, 2011 HRTO 1777, the Tribunal made the following observation regarding when the issue of dismissal for no reasonable prospect of success could be considered:

Typically, summary hearings are held at a relatively early stage in the Tribunal's process and do not involve calling witnesses. Summary hearings typically involve receiving the applicant's submissions on his or her legal theory and what evidence he or she anticipates calling at the merits hearing in support of the allegations. In my view, the principle that an application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success is not limited to the initial early stage of the Tribunal's process.

9Having reviewed the written materials filed by the applicant, including his detailed witness statement and having heard oral submissions from the parties, I find that the applicant has not satisfied me that there is any reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed.

10The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of disability. His documents and submissions indicate that he suffers from a number of chronic conditions related to diabetes. He visited and received treatment from the respondent physician's practice on approximately 20 occasions before signing onto the practice roster as a patient, either on March 28, 2014, according to the applicant, or in early April 2014, according to the respondent.

11Once on the patient roster, the applicant says that he sought a referral to a specialist on several occasions for a number of reasons. He says the respondent resisted making the referral and, according to the applicant, refused his requests and behaved rudely to him by saying, among other things that he was not a referral machine or words to that effect.

12The respondent indicates that the applicant had been treated for a number of chronic conditions by other physicians who were not part of the practice. The respondent had made several requests that the applicant provide him with a medications list to obtain a full picture of the applicant's condition and to better manage his care.

13Following several meetings, the applicant received a letter, dated April 23, 2014, from the respondent telling him that he would be removed from the patient roster at the respondent's medical practice. The reasons provided were "changes in the practice".

14In his Response, Dr. Singh acknowledged that the reason for termination of the patient/physician relationship was that the applicant's actions, specifically his repeated failure to bring in a medications list and follow instructions, demonstrated a lack of trust in the respondent and that the letter should have provided additional detail as to the reasons for de-rostering.

15The applicant experienced further issues with respect to the removal of his name from the patient roster and the transfer of his medical records to his new physician. Although he was initially told the records would be transferred free of charge, a fee was requested. Although that issue was resolved eventually, the transfer of records was, in his view, tardy and incomplete.

16Although the applicant alleges that the respondent's actions were tainted by discriminatory considerations, a review of his written materials, witness statement and submissions show that his assertions are unsupported by any cogent supporting evidence that the applicant has or is available to him.

17While it is clear that the applicant disagreed with the respondent's medical opinion and firmly believed that a referral to a specialist was warranted when he requested one be made and that the respondent did not provide him with adequate care, he has not provided me with any indication that there is evidence available to him that the treatment he complains of amounts to differential treatment on the basis of a ground under the Code.

18In addition, while the respondent's letter did not adequately convey his reasons for de-rostering the applicant from the practice, there is no evidence that the applicant had or was available to him to establish any connection between that action taken by the respondent and the applicant's disability.

19Finally, even if I accept without finding that the applicant's description of the de-rostering and transfer of records process was slow, inefficient and not as originally promised, there is nothing to suggest that he received differential treatment on the basis of a Code ground.

20To succeed in his Application the applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. To show discrimination in this case, the applicant must prove a link between the alleged discriminatory actions and the Code grounds he has identified.

21Apart from his bald assertions that disability was a factor, the applicant was unable to point to any evidence that would be available to him that would show a link between the actions he complains about and the prohibited ground that he has pleaded.

22Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.