Charette v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2015 HRTO 273

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Craig Charette

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Legal Aid Ontario and Yasir Naqvi

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 9, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 273

Indexed as: Charette v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Craig Charette, Applicant

Self-represented

Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), Respondent

Indira Sawh, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy (the “Request”).

2The applicant filed this Application on January 14, 2015, alleging discrimination in services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The allegations in the Application concern conditions in the prison in which he is currently incarcerated, including the alleged failure to receive medication he was prescribed prior to his incarceration.

DEcision

3Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, states:

23.2 The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

23.3 A Request for an Interim Remedy must include:

a) a detailed description of the order sought;

b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies; and,

c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.

4The applicant seeks an order from the Tribunal requiring the respondents to provide him with all the medications prescribed by his doctor, which he received prior to being placed into custody. As pointed out by the respondent Ministry in its submissions, it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to order the named respondents to administer medication as this is a determination properly made by a physician. The applicant’s physician has not provided any information to the Tribunal that this medication is necessary or even beneficial to treat a medical condition of the applicant.

5In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, the Tribunal states that interim remedies are extraordinary and are only granted when an applicant is able to demonstrate that such a remedy is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to articulate why such a remedy is necessary at this stage of the proceedings. Indeed, the applicant’s Request was not supported by a signed declaration, as required by Rule 23.3(b), and on this basis alone must fail.

6In the circumstances, his Request for Interim Remedy is denied.