Ruffolo v. Focus Assessments, 2011 HRTO 803

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 21, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 803

Indexed as: Ruffolo v. Focus Assessments

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Achille John Ruffolo, Applicant ) Self-represented

Focus Assessments Inc. and ) Donald G. Kidd, Counsel Jonathan Siegel, 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 Tribunal has scheduled a summary hearing in the matter, to be held on April 26, 2011. By Interim Decision dated April 19, 2011, 2011 HRTO 763, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s Request to change the venue of the hearing. The applicant has now requested an adjournment of the hearing. It is unnecessary to receive submissions from the respondents on the Request.

2The applicant requests, as an accommodation of a communication disability, that “the Tribunal appoint a representative from the OHRC or explore other accommodations to enable me to communicate my thoughts and to communicate with the parties my thoughts in these proceedings.” He asks that the proceedings, which include this one, be adjourned until the matter is dealt with “including any complaints that may rise for failure to accommodate against the Tribunal and any appeals that may follow.” He also asks that “the Tribunal order that the lawyers who get rich at the expense of disabled persons respond so they can keep on billing their clients.”

3The applicant’s Request for an adjournment is denied.

4The Interim Decision of April 19 reviewed some of the scheduling history of this hearing. In that decision, I noted that the applicant’s requests for adjournments and accommodation in this matter “have been based on conflicting and changing needs”. Although the applicant has known about the summary hearing since November 2010, this new accommodation request is made on the eve of the hearing.

5The Tribunal does not appoint representatives from the OHRC. The applicant has previously been advised that he may seek assistance from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and has been directed to the Applicant’s Guide in which information about how to contact the Centre or other sources of legal assistance is given.

6Although the applicant states that he has a communication disability he has shown himself fully capable of expressing himself in writing, as demonstrated by the correspondence in this and other matters before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given him the opportunity to provide his written submissions in advance of the hearing. I find there is no basis to adjourn the hearing in order to “explore other accommodations.” The applicant’s Request for an adjournment is denied.

7The hearing will proceed as scheduled on April 26, 2011. The parties’ attention is directed to the fact that the Tribunal’s offices will be closed for the statutory holidays on April 22 and 25, 2011.

8I am not seized of this matter.