HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Leslie Campbell by his Litigation Guardian Jacqueline Lewis-Campbell
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Toronto District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed As: Campbell v. Toronto District School Board
1In this complaint, the Tribunal has held three days of hearings, on January 26, 27 and 29, 2010. The hearing is scheduled to continue on March 5 and April 9, 2010.
2By letter dated February 26, the complainant’s litigation guardian has requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for March 5.
3The Commission has stated that it takes no position on the request. The respondent, the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) states that while it does not “aggressively oppose” the request, it has serious concerns about it.
4The reason given for the request is that the complainant wishes to have a representative for the duration of the hearing. The complainant’s litigation guardian states that she is concerned about the fairness and integrity of the process, because the documents that she was provided with during questioning by the Board do not match the same document originals that she has in her possession. She states that she has responded to questioning based on altered documents and therefore has provided responses to specific questions that do not match her own file.
5The Tribunal does not find this to be a reasonable basis for adjourning the hearing.
6At the outset of the hearing, the complainant’s litigation guardian indicated that she was content to have counsel for the Commission present the complainant’s case, including calling evidence. She raised no concerns about requiring separate representation. Neither did she raise any concerns at any point during the hearing, and was given ample opportunity to consult with counsel for the Commission.
7The complainant’s litigation guardian suggests that her request for an adjournment to seek representation is based on events that occurred during the hearing. It should be noted that the documents used during cross-examination of the litigation guardian have been in her possession for many months, having been disclosed by the Board under the Tribunal’s rules in early 2008. The Board also provided a book of documents that it intended to rely on at the hearing starting on January 26, 2010, which contains the same documents previously disclosed.
8If the complainant’s litigation guardian believed that the Board’s disclosure was not sufficient, she could have raised this earlier. If she had additional documents she wished to use at the hearing, these should have been disclosed before the hearing. The Commission and the Board provided books of documents to be relied on at the hearing, but the complainant did not.
9Finally, during the evidence of the complainant’s litigation guardian, she raised her concern that some documents in the Board’s book of documents may be different from those she had in her possession. Following her cross-examination, she was given an opportunity to review her own documents against those of the Board and to consult with counsel for the Commission for this purpose. During her re-examination, she provided an additional document that had not previously been disclosed, which was put in evidence without objection.
10The litigation guardian has thus had opportunities both before and at the hearing to address her concerns about the Board’s documents. She has had more than a month since the hearing to further consider her position and seek representation. If the Tribunal grants the request for an adjournment, this hearing will not conclude on April 9, as expected, to the detriment of the expeditious resolution of this complaint.
11In all the circumstances, the Tribunal does not find it fair, just or expeditious to grant the request for an adjournment. The request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of March, 2010.
“Signed by”
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair