Sleiman v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)

[Indexed as: Sleiman v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)]

Ghassan (Gus) Sleiman, Applicant and Ontario Human Rights Commission and The Attorney General in Right of Ontario, Respondent

Ontario Divisional Court

Cunningham A.C.J. Ont. S.C.J., A. Campbell, Greer JJ.

Heard: March 3, 2003 Oral reasons: March 3, 2003 Written reasons: March 5, 2003 Docket: 232/02

Ghassan (Gus) Sleiman for himself Sharon Ffolkes Abrahams, Amyn Hadibhai, for Respondent, Commission Anita L. Lyon, for Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Reasons for Decision

Cunningham A.C.J. Ont. S.C.J. (orally):

1 The applicant is a non-custodial parent. He has a court access order which is silent as to medical records. Without a court order or the consent of the custodial parent he cannot access his son's medical records. His remedy if any is in court, whatever his legal entitlement may or may not be under s.16(5) of the Divorce Act or otherwise. Instead of applying there he went to the Human Rights Commission. The Commission has no jurisdiction to usurp the function of the Family Court in determining the respective rights of custodial and non-custodial parents to medical records.

2 There is no discrimination on the basis of family or marital status. Limitations on individual custody rights flowing from individual court orders and provincial law do not constitute any form of prohibited discrimination.

3 As for disclosure, the applicant was given all the important details he needed and he knew the case he had to meet. Looking at the tribunal procedures as a whole, there was no unfairness. Whatever the standard of review, even on a standard of correctness there is no basis to interfere with the various decisions of the tribunal including its decision on the application to reconsider and for these reasons the application is dismissed.

4 We award costs to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, payable by the applicant to be fixed at $1,000.

Application dismissed.