Michael Palangio v. The Corporation of the Town of Cochrane, Lawrence Martin, Pierre Demers and Rheal Cousineau, 2010 HRTO 1278

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Michael Palangio Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the Town of Cochrane, Lawrence Martin, Pierre Demers and Rheal Cousineau Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: June 3, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1278 Indexed as: Palangio v. Cochrane (Town)

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the "Code") which was served on the respondents on October 22, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") on April 3, 2006.

2The hearing in this matter is currently scheduled to proceed on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 in Timmins.

3The applicant previously had requested an adjournment of the hearing in this matter, on the basis that he was involved in litigation with his former employer and because he was planning to go to Ohio with his spouse to care for his ill father-in-law. On May 31, 2010, I issued an Interim Decision denying this adjournment request, 2010 HRTO 1221.

4On the evening of May 31, 2010, after my Interim Decision had been sent to him, the applicant states that he went to the emergency department at Lady Minto Hospital and obtained a note from a doctor which states in its entirety "off work x 2 weeks". The applicant forwarded this note to the Tribunal on the morning of June 1, 2010 with a letter stating that he cannot make the hearing and that he is sick and will be resting. He also stated that he would contact the Tribunal in two weeks time with his latest doctor's report, and asked that the hearing be re-scheduled to sometime in the future.

5The respondents were asked for submissions on the applicant's latest request, which were provided by letter dated June 1, 2010. The respondents note that it was only after he received the Interim Decision (and was advised that an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment might include the "illness of a party") that the applicant suddenly announced that he would be seeking a doctor's note and claimed there was a medical issue. The respondents state that there was no previous indication of such health problems, which raises questions as to the genuineness of the applicant's claims of illness, since the allegation of illness only arose after the Interim Decision was rendered by the Tribunal denying the adjournment.

6The respondents further submit that the reference to "Off Work x 2 weeks" written on a prescription note pad by an unidentified physician does not necessarily constitute reasonable grounds or establish a medical illness which would prevent the applicant from attending a scheduled hearing. There is no information from the physician as to what medical ailments might exist which would reasonably prevent the applicant from attending the hearing (if indeed they prevented him from going to work). The respondents submit that it is obvious that on short notice, the applicant had attended at the emergency room, and based on whatever limited information was provided to the physician, the physician has simply issued an "off-work" slip. It is submitted that this does not provide sufficient facts to explain why the applicant cannot attend the hearing, nor does it warrant an adjournment. The respondents further note that previous information from the applicant confirms he is retired, which begs the question as to why a doctor's note was provided indicating he should be "off work".

7The respondents submit that the applicant is not reasonably providing grounds for an adjournment and is attempting to avoid appearing for a hearing which has now put a number of respondents to great expense and inconvenience. It is also noted that the applicant's communications to the Tribunal indicate no reasonable alternative date in accordance with the policies of the Tribunal. Instead, the applicant has advised the Tribunal that he will "contact the Tribunal in two weeks time" with his "latest doctor's report". The respondents take the position that the applicant has unreasonably suggested that this matter be put on hold indefinitely as the parties all await further word from him.

8The respondents submit that the context in which this complaint arises is necessary to understand the events which occurred. They state that there was difficult litigation underway due to the applicant's conduct as a Municipal Councillor and issues relating to extended litigation proceedings that proceeded for over four years. Upon a review of the file, the respondents note that in the course of that litigation, the applicant, on a number of occasions, similarly attempted to avoid attendance to scheduled examinations, hearings or Court appearances citing a myriad of excuses from time to time. He requested adjournments because he was seeking legal representation, but then subsequently counsel withdrew. In 2005 he claimed he could not attend a motion because it was necessary to attend to Ohio for his ill father-in-law who required his help. He claimed to be unavailable when scheduling dates for examinations and meetings due to vague references to "other commitments" or the fact that his schedule was not "clear". On one occasion he cancelled a discovery due to an alleged damaged hearing aid, but after adjourning the matter, he then attended and participated in a public meeting on the same day.

9As a result of this prior history, the respondents view this new attempt to avoid the scheduled hearing as simply another often-seen example of the applicant's unreasonably antagonistic and uncooperative behaviour. The respondents state that the applicant has had more than adequate notice to prepare for this hearing, and that his revised attempts to rationalize a delay are unreasonable and the hearing should proceed.

10As the applicant is not committing to alternate dates, and because of the anticipated difficulty of securing the attendance of all parties and witnesses in the next few months (because other hearings, proceedings, and vacations were scheduled around the hearing now scheduled for June 8, 2010) the respondents again raise concerns with respect to the ability to re-schedule this hearing. As one of the named respondents is the Corporation of the Town of Cochrane, it is noted that this is an election year and postponing this hearing to months in the fall period would cause numerous practical problems for the municipal organization and the persons involved in the hearing. The respondents note that, with issues of representation, preparation of witnesses for attendance, and coordinating preparation for this hearing, the applicant's last minute efforts to postpone this matter to avoid attending is causing further difficulty for the Municipality and its representatives and witnesses.

11This correspondence was copied to the applicant, and the Tribunal sought submissions from him in response. He states that he has been under enormous stress in the past six weeks. He states that retiring is one of the biggest events in a person's life, and that with that issue as well as his personal ones, he was overwhelmed and told the Tribunal this weeks ago in his first request. He states that he cannot make the hearing on June 8, 2010. He states that the issue is very important to him and to thousands of hearing impaired people in this province, that he fought to get a hearing date, and that he wants to go in prepared and in the best of health. He states that his health is the most important thing to him today and he may return to the hospital in a few days if he is not feeling better. The applicant reiterates that he cannot make the June 8 hearing date and repeats his request for an adjournment, and notes that all the respondents' witnesses will still be here in a month.

12I appreciate that a hearing before this Tribunal is a stressful experience for all parties. In the applicant's case, I also appreciate that there may also be other stressors in his life at the moment, including his recent retirement, other litigation and the health of his father-in-law. I also can well appreciate that the applicant is feeling overwhelmed.

13That, however, is not a sufficient justification to adjourn the hearing in this matter, which has been scheduled for some months now and which involves the parties and their witnesses not only having prepared for the hearing but having made travel arrangements to come to the Tribunal's hearing centre in Timmins from Cochrane.

14In all of the circumstances and in light of the history of this matter, I do not regard the medical note provided by the applicant to be sufficient. It does not specifically address the applicant's ability to attend the hearing on June 8, 2010, but instead makes a brief and vague reference to him being "off work" for two weeks, at a time when the applicant does not appear to be employed. While this Tribunal does not require the details of a diagnosis of a party's medical condition, this note also does not indicate what symptoms the applicant may be experiencing or what medical restrictions he may have which prevent him from attending the hearing. Nor has the applicant himself provided any such information to the Tribunal in support of his adjournment request. The applicant merely states that he is feeling overwhelmed and "sick" and that he "will be resting".

15As a result, the applicant's request for an adjournment is denied, and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 8, 2010 commencing at 10:00 a.m in Timmins.

16I am not seized.