Emmanuel Agbalugo v. York University, 2010 HRTO 2252

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: November 12, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2252 Indexed as: Agbalugo v. York University

Written Submissions By

Emmanuel Agbalugo, Applicant (Self-represented) York University, Respondent (Joanna Rainbow, Counsel)

1This Interim Decision addresses the scheduling of the continuation of this hearing following the applicant’s request for an adjournment on September 13, 2010 (the “Request”), and the Tribunal’s Interim Decision dated September 27, 2010, 2010 HRTO 1959. The original continuation dates, September 29 and 30, 2010, were adjourned subject to the applicant providing additional medical information that would assist the Tribunal in understanding when the applicant would medically be in position to participate in a hearing of his Application.

2On October 26, 2010, the Registrar-Transition advised the parties that this matter will be rescheduled for two days sometime in April 2011 based on the parties mutually agreeing to the dates. The following are my reasons for this decision.

3In his Request, the applicant originally asked for an adjournment until February 2011. The applicant provided two doctor’s notes in support of his Request dated September 24, 2010 and October 5, 2010. The first explains that the applicant suffers from sleep apnea and chronic depression and that the applicant’s sleep apnea machine, which is needed as a treatment device, has been broken since July 2010. Because the applicant does not have sufficient income, the doctor advised that it will likely take three or four months for the applicant to purchase a new machine. The second note advises that assuming that the applicant is able to use the sleep apnea machine by February 2011, he should be able to participate in a hearing at the Tribunal by mid-April 2011.

4Subsequently, the applicant emailed the Tribunal on October 8, 2010, asking that the hearing not be rescheduled until the middle of May or June 2011. The applicant explained that he does not want to be absent from work and wants to use his accumulated vacation time to prepare for the continuation of the hearing. In support of this request, the applicant also forwarded a copy of a letter of reprimand concerning poor attendance dated September 30, 2010 from his current employer. The applicant also claims that because his current job is in jeopardy he needs time to correct his absenteeism issue before taking time off to prepare and attend at the hearing.

5On October 14, 2010, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal objecting to the applicant’s request to reschedule the hearing for either May or June 2011. The respondent notes that the applicant’s initial adjournment Request was for February 2011 and question the length of time required for him to purchase a sleep apnea machine; however, they maintain that, based on the medical information provided, the applicant should be capable of continuing the hearing by mid-April 2011.

6The respondent states that the Application contains allegations dating back to 2004 and therefore any additional delay will further prejudice its position. In addition, from a practical standpoint, resuming the hearing in May or June will conflict with a number of the respondent’s witnesses’ professional and academic schedules. Finally, the respondent argues that the applicant has had all of the relevant documents for the hearing in his possession since at least as early May 2010, and should be in a position to prepare for a hearing in mid-April 2011.

7From a medical viewpoint, the applicant has been cleared to attend a hearing by mid-April 2011 with the caveat that the applicant will have had the opportunity to treat sleep apnea by February 2011. The September 27, 2010 Decision asked the applicant to provide medical documentation indicating when he would be ready to attend a hearing. That documentation was provided and establishes mid-April 2011 as the first available time period that the applicant should be fit to attend a hearing.

8While the applicant may believe that he needs time to prepare his case and has concerns about missing work, I do not agree that these submissions justify a further delay in rescheduling beyond April 2011. Given that the first day of hearing was originally scheduled for May 20, 2009, the applicant will have had had all of the relevant materials and documents in his possession for more than a year by the time the hearing reconvenes in April 2011. That, in my view, is more than ample time to prepare for the hearing.

9In addition, I agree it would be unfair to ask the respondent to attend at a hearing in mid-May or June 2011, given the number of witnesses who likely will have conflicts with scheduling due to professional and academic commitments.

10Accordingly, this hearing is adjourned until mid-April 2011. The Registrar-Transition will contact the parties to canvass dates in order to reschedule the hearing of this Application.