Emmanuel Agbalugo v. York University, 2010 HRTO 1959

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Emmanuel Agbalugo

Applicant

-and-

York University

Respondent

interim Decision

Adjudicator: Dale Hewat

Date: September 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1959

Indexed as: Agbalugo v. York University

1This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) filed by the applicant on September 13, 2010, requesting an adjournment of this hearing which is scheduled to continue on September 29 and 30, 2010, until February 2011. In support of his Request, the applicant has provided a doctor’s note dated August 30, 2010 indicating that the applicant is currently in poor health due to depression, chronic fatigue and sleep apnoea and requesting a postponement of the hearing on the applicant’s behalf. The respondent has advised that it is opposing the adjournment request or alternatively requests that the scheduling of a new date be conditional upon the applicant providing medical evidence that he will be well enough to proceed with a hearing.

2This hearing was originally scheduled on May 20, 2010. The applicant attended that hearing and received an adjournment due to personal and medical reasons. During the hearing, I asked the applicant how much time he required before the scheduling of the next hearing date, and the new hearing dates were chosen based on the applicant’s time-frame. I also provided the applicant with an extension of time to file documents until June 10, 2010. During the hearing on May 20, 2010, I was concerned about delaying this matter but determined that it was necessary to adjourn the case given the applicant’s difficulty in effectively participating that day in a hearing. I cautioned the applicant that further delays would likely not be considered and that the timelines for filing of materials would be strictly enforced.

3The respondent states that the applicant was granted the adjournment on May 20, 2010, because he was unwell and that the applicant has been afforded ample time to prepare for the hearing scheduled on September 29 and 30, 2010. The respondent notes that the applicant is now relying on a medical practitioner’s letter that was written four weeks before the scheduled continuation date for the hearing predicting that the applicant would be unable to attend due to poor health. Additionally, the respondent submits that the doctor’s note does not indicate when the applicant will be well enough to participate in the hearing. The respondent also raised concerns about how the continued delay of this matter, which is based on a 2007 human rights complaint that contains allegations dating back to 2004, will cause irreparable harm because of witnesses’ memory and availability.

4While I understand the legitimate arguments raised by the respondent, given the doctor’s note that has been provided by the applicant, I find that there are grounds to adjourn this matter. Even though I cautioned the applicant about not considering other delays in this case, it appears that the applicant continues to be unable to participate in the hearing scheduled for September 29 and 30, 2010 due to medical reasons. Although the doctor’s note was written on August 30, 2010, there is no reason for me to assume that the applicant’s condition has improved to the point where he would be able to fully participate in the hearing.

5The doctor’s note that the applicant provided does not state when the applicant would be able to attend a hearing. In his Request, the applicant has asked for an adjournment until February 2011. Before scheduling a new date for the continuation of this matter, the applicant will need to provide a doctor’s note by October 8, 2010, to the Tribunal and the respondent, that will state when it is anticipated that the applicant will be able to attend a hearing in person or if the applicant would be able to participate through other means such as a conference call. Based on the information provided by the medical practitioner, the Tribunal will set mutually agreed dates to continue the hearing. However, the applicant should be aware that an extended delay of this matter might affect whether the Tribunal is able to conduct a hearing due to the passage of time.

6The hearing for September 29 and 30 is adjourned and a new continuation date for the hearing will be set subject to the applicant providing a doctor’s note as indicated above by October 8, 2010.