Demone v. Hanover and District Hospital, 2010 HRTO 612

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sarah Demone

Applicant

-and-

Hanover and District Hospital

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: March 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 612

Indexed as: Demone v. Hanover and District Hospital

1Between March 8 and 10, the Tribunal conducted three days of hearing in this ongoing matter. The applicant has concluded her evidence and the Tribunal has begun to hear from the respondent’s witnesses. Additional hearing dates have been scheduled.

2On March 16, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and the respondent asking permission call an additional witness, her treating physician. The respondent objects to the request.

3At the hearing, the applicant sought to tender into evidence certain portions of her medical record. The respondent objected to this evidence because it was incomplete and because the applicant had failed to call her treating physician as a witness.

4I rendered an oral decision, concluding that the partial medical record was inadmissible. As I indicated to the parties, my principal concern was that the records were incomplete. I felt that a selective and limited portion of the applicant's medical record would not assist me in rendering my decision.

5The applicant now seeks to call her treating physician.

6I am not prepared to grant this request at this stage of the proceeding.

7First, the applicant has already concluded her evidence and calling additional witnesses may unduly delay the proceeding. Second, and more importantly, I do not feel that the evidence of the treating physician is necessary.

8The applicant provided oral evidence and was cross-examined at length. The applicant’s evidence regarding her medical condition was not seriously challenged on cross-examination. I am satisfied, based on the applicant's oral evidence, that she had a disability at the material times. Given this conclusion, I do not feel that the evidence of the applicant's treating physician is probative at this stage of the proceeding.

9This conclusion is without prejudice to the applicant's ability to adduce additional evidence in Reply, including (if appropriate) the testimony of her treating physician.

10I note that while I accept that the applicant had a disability, it remains to be determined whether the respondent knew or ought to have known that the applicant was disabled. The issues of whether the respondent had a duty to accommodate and whether it met that duty are also outstanding.