Iley v. Sault Ste. Marie Community Information and Career Centre, 2010 HRTO 1773

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tom Iley

Applicant

-and-

Sault Ste. Marie Community Information and Career Centre Inc.,

Karol Rains, Robert Kerr and John Meadows

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Shannon

Date: August 30, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1773

Indexed as: Iley v. Sault Ste. Marie Community Information and Career Centre

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, dated June 26, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on December 20, 2007.

2The Application alleges that the applicant experienced discrimination in employment because of disability due to an alleged failure to receive appropriate workplace accommodation following his diagnosis with Parkinson’s disease in March 2007 and further alleges that he was forced to go off work on disability leave.

3This matter is scheduled to proceed on September 8 and 9 of this year. The respondent has requested an adjournment by way of a written submission as follows:

(...) Since the Interim Decision was released on July 8, 2010 Mr. Iley has only provided a virtually illegible copy of apparently handwritten notes of his urologist, Dr. Mathew, and nothing else. On July 14, 2010 I wrote to Mr. Iley on behalf of the Respondent asking for more legible copies and, if possible, a transcription of the doctor’s handwriting so that the notes can be understood. We have received no response whatsoever to that letter.

Adjudicator Shannon, as the record shows, directed that the Applicant must index and number the medical productions and seek full consultation note from Dr. Mathew in support of her opinion that the Applicant could work in an accommodated workplace. No report has been received. The Applicant appears to have prepared a document brief but has not provided me with a copy (or copy of his letter to Dr. Mathew sent to the Tribunal on August 6, 2010).

The respondents would have the opportunity to review the material and by August 31, 2010 determine whether or not they wished to arrange a functional assessment evaluation and/or neurological assessment of Mr. Iley....

Clearly the respondents do not have enough time to arrange for a functional assessment, if necessary, and to further prepare for the hearing. Under the above circumstances, the hearing scheduled for September 8 and 9, 2010 is adjourned.

4The applicant is directed to make best efforts to forward clear and legible copies of Dr. Matthews handwritten medical notes to the Tribunal within 14 days of this Interim Decision. The respondents are further directed to reimburse the applicant for the costs of such a production, since it is being done at their request. The Tribunal shall inspect such documents and determine their relevance to this matter, if any. If required, a subsequent Interim Decision shall order production of particular documents. At that point the respondents can decide whether they wish to call Dr. Matthew as a witness, but there will be no further adjournment granted based on their dissatisfaction with the legibility of a third partys handwritten notes.

5The applicant was directed to submit all redacted medical documents to the Tribunal’s Registrar. They have been received at the Registrar`s Office. Rather than await the possibility of further delays due to objections respecting production based on relevancy of the documents they will be reviewed immediately. The principles for medical document disclosure as outlined in the Tribunal’s earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1421 issued July 10, 2010 will be used to determine production.