Achille John Ruffolo v. Focus Assessments Inc. and Jonathan Siegel, 2011 HRTO 682

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Achille John Ruffolo

Applicant

-and-

Focus Assessments Inc. and Jonathan Siegel

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: April 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 682

Indexed as: Ruffolo v. Focus Assessments

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Achille John Ruffolo, Applicant ) Self-represented

Focus Assessments Inc. and Jonathan Siegel, ) Donald G. Kidd, Counsel

Respondents )

1This is an Application filed on July 8, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine the applicant’s Request for a further adjournment of a Summary Hearing.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated November 17, 2010, the Tribunal granted the respondents’ Request for Summary Hearing. The Tribunal directed that the half-day Summary Hearing be held by teleconference.

3The applicant asked, as an accommodation of a cognitive disability, that the Summary Hearing be held in person, and was advised that he could attend the hearing in person at the Tribunal’s Hearing Centre. The applicant subsequently advised that he had a doctor’s appointment on the date scheduled for the Summary Hearing and requested that it be adjourned to another date. The respondents objected to the request in the absence of any supporting documentation confirming the appointment, and the Tribunal requested that the applicant provide such documentation.

4After the applicant provided a document confirming the appointment, the Tribunal re-scheduled the Summary Hearing, to April 26, 2011. The Tribunal has also issued additional Case Assessment Directions, which are unnecessary to detail here.

5On March 26, 2011, the applicant requested that the Summary Hearing be “postponed until my driver’s license is reinstated and my depressive episode is resolved.” He states that his driver’s license has been suspended, as a result of a neurologist’s report. He states that he is therefore unable to attend the summary hearing and, as well, the suspension of the license has triggered a depressive episode that results in an inability to fully participate in the Summary Hearing. He states that his appeal of the driver’s license suspension will take at least six weeks.

6The respondents oppose the adjournment. Among other things, they dispute that the loss of the driver’s license will prevent the applicant from travelling to the Summary Hearing, and point out the availability of trains and buses. Based on other correspondence of which they are aware, they also question the existence of a depressive episode that prevents the applicant from participating in the Summary Hearing.

7The respondents submit that the Tribunal should not grant an adjournment on the basis of the assertions of a “depressive episode” without a proper and detailed medical report.

8The respondents submit that every time this matter is re-scheduled or adjourned, there is a cost to them. They wish to have the matter dealt with as soon as reasonably possible.

9In reply, the applicant states that he will provide a medical report if the respondents pay for it. Further, he states that he has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of his motor vehicle accident and being a passenger is very stressful to him.

10On the basis of the material before me, I do not grant the adjournment. The hearing will proceed on April 26, 2011 unless the applicant provides medical documentation supporting his assertions that a PTSD prevents him from travelling as a passenger instead of a driver in order to attend the hearing on that date, and that he is experiencing a depressive episode that results in an inability to participate in the summary hearing scheduled for that date. The medical documentation must also address when it is anticipated that the applicant may be able to participate in the Summary Hearing.

11I am not seized of this matter.