HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Brenda MacDonald
Applicant
-and-
Medical Arts Pharmacy
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe
Indexed as: MacDonald v. Medical Arts Pharmacy
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Brenda MacDonald, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application alleged discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), with respect to services because of disability and citizenship. Although based on the applicant’s narrative, it appears that she is only asserting discrimination on the basis of disability. The applicant questions the accuracy of the expiry dates on medication that she received from a pharmacy. She submits that the medication may have expired, and seeks an investigation into whether the pharmacy dispensed expired medication.
2On June 14, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising the applicant that a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.
3In response to the Notice, the applicant provided written submissions. The applicant did not adequately address the issue of the absence of a link to the grounds, cited in her Application; rather, she provided detailed submissions on federal and provincial statutes concerning consumer protection, and, food and drug administration.
OTHER REQUESTS
4The applicant also sought requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry, to add additional organizational respondents, and to amend her listed remedies.
5It is unnecessary to deal with these requests given the findings below.
FINDINGS
6An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
7The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. To fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, an application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s conduct to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Application and the applicant’s submissions deal with allegations that the respondent may have dispensed expired medication. In addition she asserts that the respondent’s alleged conduct is fraudulent and/or a misrepresentation, and violates consumer protection and food and drug administration statutes. The applicant states that because she is disabled, the respondent’s alleged acts constitute discrimination under the Code. However, the materials provided by the applicant fail to point to any connection between this treatment and any ground in the Code. Rather, her chief complaint seems to be that the pharmacy engaged in fraud and misrepresentation as it pertains to its drug dispensary. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to determine issues pertaining to an applicant’s complaints about drug administration unless they are connected to a Code ground.
8In these circumstances, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not conduct prohibited by the Code. Therefore, the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
ORDER
9For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of August, 2017.
“Signed by”
Esi Codjoe
Vice-chair