Daryle Hayes v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2011 HRTO 1822

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daryle Hayes

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: October 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1822

Indexed as: Hayes v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of goods, services or facilities. He states that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) does not allow for a direct deposit service. According to the applicant, this means that individuals who receive funds from the WSIB must attend at a bank, which he states can cause undue hardship.

2In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated May 13, 2011, the Tribunal ordered that the matter proceed to a summary hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In the CAD, the Tribunal cites Rule 19A.2, which specifies that the disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings.

3A summary hearing has been scheduled for October 17, 2011. On September 28, 2011, the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal (with a copy to the respondent) and requested an adjournment of the hearing. The applicant states that he is unable to obtain documents from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in time to allow for their disclosure 14 days in advance of the summary hearing.

4The respondent has not consented to the request for adjournment.

DECISION

5The request for adjournment is denied. The only basis the applicant has advanced for the adjournment is his inability to disclose documents in advance of the hearing. Under Rule 19A.2, the disclosure obligations do not apply to summary hearings. There is, accordingly, no basis to adjourn the summary hearing.