Jacques Perron v. Yvonne Monto, 2011 HRTO 668

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jacques Perron

Complainant

-and-

Yvonne Monto

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Mary Anne McKellar

Date: April 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 668

Indexed as: Perron v. Monto

_____________________________________________________________________________________________­­­­­­­

1Mr. Perron (the applicant) has not complied with the directions to provide a list of witnesses and provide will-say statements for them as set out in some detail in the conference call memorandum dated December 6th, 2010, and repeated in my Interim Decision dated March 28, 2011, 2011 HRTO 606.

2The applicant has failed to provide any fresh medical evidence addressing how his participation in the hearing process might be accommodated as he was directed to do in my Interim Decision dated March 28, 2011. He has simply filed another copy of medical documentation he had previously filed, and which I not only had in my possession and reviewed, but which I explicitly referred to as the basis for requiring further information.

3He has already been warned about the potential consequences to him of failing to comply with the Tribunal's directions and with the requirements of the rules governing this Application. If he does not attend a hearing that has not been adjourned, it may proceed in his absence, and without regard to material filed by him. If he does attend without having properly put the other side on notice of the evidence (through will say statements of witnesses he intends to call and through identification of any documents relied on) he intends to rely on in support his case, he may be precluded from relying on that evidence.

4In some circumstances, the Tribunal may, as an accommodative measure, direct a change of venue, or may conduct a hearing in which one or more parties participate electronically (i.e. by conference call). It is not apparent whether any of these measures would enable the applicant to participate. Furthermore, no determination with respect to a change of venue can be made (as indicated on two previous occasions) until the applicant has filed proper witness statements.

5For clarity, the hearing scheduled for April 15, 2011, has not been adjourned.

6I am seized of this matter.