Hassan v. Michelle Kim Pharmacy Inc., 2017 HRTO 985

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abdullahi Hassan

Applicant

-and-

Michelle Kim Pharmacy Inc. o/a Shoppers Drug Mart

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jacek Janczur Date: August 2, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 985 Indexed as: Hassan v. Michelle Kim Pharmacy Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Abdullahi Hassan, Applicant Self-represented

Michelle Kim Pharmacy Inc. o/a Shoppers Drug Mart, Respondent Matthew Di Giovanni, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On June 8, 2017, the applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”). In the RFOP, he seeks an audit of the respondent to determine if the respondent has accessed his personal health information. He also requests that Loblaws Inc. be added as a respondent.

3The respondent filed a Form 11 in response to the RFOP in which it opposes both the audit and the request for the addition of Loblaws Inc. as a respondent.

The request for an audit

4The applicant’s request for an audit of Shoppers Drug Mart is akin to a Tribunal-ordered inquiry.

5A Tribunal-ordered inquiry will not be a routine event and will not be a substitute for the usual production process contemplated by the Rules. See White v. University of Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 1057. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure set out a process that requires the parties to produce all arguably relevant documents in their possession. If the parties cannot agree, or if one party has reason to believe that there are documents in the possession of a party or other person that have not been produced, the Tribunal has the authority to order the production of materials. The disclosure process commences after an application has been scheduled for hearing, which has not occurred yet in this matter, and the applicant provided no reason why the documents and information he seeks are needed at this early stage of the proceeding.

The addition of a respondent

6The applicant did not provide any reasons in support of his request that Loblaws Inc. be added as a respondent to the Application. Accordingly, this request cannot be granted.

ORDER

7The RFOP is denied.