HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
M.C.M by his Litigation Guardian P.C
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: P.C v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request to remove an individual respondent as a party to this Application and the applicant’s request to expedite this proceeding.
2In his Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of citizenship, gender identity, family and marital status. The central claim of the applicant is that he has been denied coverage under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan for discriminatory reasons.
Request to Expedite
3The applicant filed a Requested to Expedite (Form 14) with his Application. Although filed as a request to expedite all or part of the Tribunal process, what the applicant is seeking is an “immediate grant of OHIP coverage and a change in the health act (sic)”.
4The respondent was served with the Form 14 and has responded to it.
5Both parties have agreed to mediation. Without deciding the applicant’s Request, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation on an expedited basis.
The Respondent’s Request for Order
6The respondent also filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the personal respondent. In his Application, the applicant had identified the Minister of Health and Long Term Care in his personal capacity.
7The Request is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.
8Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, 2008 HRTO 14 at para. 42, the Tribunal set out the general principles that apply to this issue:
The unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Code, a corporation is deemed to be liable for “any act or thing done or omitted to be done in the course of his or her employment by an officer, official, employee or agent”. Where there is no issue as to the ability of a corporate respondent to respond to or remedy an alleged Code infringement and no issue raised as to a corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the actions of an individual who is sought to be added as a personal respondent, then in my view the individual ought not be added as a personal respondent in the absence of some compelling juridical reason. A compelling juridical reason may exist, for example, where it is the individual conduct of a proposed personal respondent that is a central issue as opposed to actions which are more in the nature of following organizational practices or policies or where the nature of the alleged conduct of a proposed personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found.
9The Tribunal further expanded on these principles in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5:
Applying these principles to the Tribunal’s power to remove a personal respondent from a proceeding, the following non-exhaustive list of factors may be helpful in assessing whether a personal respondent should be removed:
Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?
Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?
Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?
In considering whether any compelling reason exists to continue the proceeding against a personal respondent, one way of approaching this question is to ask whether it is necessary to involve this person as a party in order to have a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the complaint.
10The respondent argues that the Application is essentially a complaint about the eligibility criteria for OHIP. The respondent argues that the applicant makes no claim that that there was any conduct of the Minister that was discriminatory.
11The applicant opposed the Request citing a conversation between the Minister and an M.P.P. in which, the Minister allegedly undertook to arrange a meeting between Ministry officials and the applicant’s family.
12I agree with the respondent, the claim here relates to the eligibility criteria for OHIP benefits. The allegation that the applicant makes about the Minister raises no Code grounds nor does the applicant make that allegation. Rather, the applicant states that the Minister is responsible for his words and should be held accountable for the fact that the meeting he is alleged to have agreed to facilitate has yet to occur. There is nothing in the applicant’s pleadings that would suggest that this allegation engages the Code in any way.
13The respondent’s Request is granted and the Minister is removed from the Application and the style of cause amended accordingly.
Next Step
14The Tribunal will endeavor to schedule a mediation in the month of August, 2015. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, the applicant may renew his Request to Expedite.
15I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of July, 2015.
“Signed By”
David Muir
Vice-chair