Dennison v. Sarafian, 2011 HRTO 906

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Barry Dennison Applicant

-and-

Edward Sarafian Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: May 10, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 906 Indexed as: Dennison v. Sarafian

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with an adjournment request as well as outstanding procedural issues arising from a Request for Order During Proceeding ("Request") filed by the applicant.

The Adjournment

2The respondent seeks an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for May 11, 2011, on medical grounds. This is the second adjournment request made by the respondent, the first one being granted in 2011 HRTO 640 on April 5, 2011. However the respondent, who has kidney disease, was called into surgery for a kidney transplant on April 9, 2011. According to his physician, who has provided a letter dated April 29, 2011, the procedure was complicated and the respondent was only released from hospital two weeks later, on or about April 23, 2011. The respondent's physician "strongly requests" that the hearing be postponed for at least six months because of the respondent's previous longstanding disability and the recent surgical procedure.

3The applicant opposes the adjournment believing that the respondent is able to come to the hearing and is only seeking to delay the hearing again.

4I am satisfied that the adjournment of the hearing is appropriate in light of the respondent's unexpected and apparently more complicated than usual surgery.

5The parties are directed to provide their available dates for a one-day hearing in November 2011.

Other Matters

6The applicant seeks two Orders. The applicant seeks the addition of a new individual respondent on the basis that he named this individual in the original complaint and he was involved in the events giving rise to the complaint. In addition, the applicant seeks an Order compelling a witness to produce documents prior to the hearing. The applicant provided no reasons for this aspect of the Request.

7In a Case Assessment Direction dated April 26, 2011, the applicant was directed as follows:

On the basis of the submissions of the applicant neither Request would be granted at this stage. The applicant is directed, should he wish to proceed with his Request deliver and file submission on the reasons for it. For example the applicant is directed to explain why it is necessary to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this dispute that a new individual respondent be added to the Application. As regards the request that a witness be directed to produce documents prior to the hearing, the applicant should explain why the documents he seeks are arguably relevant to the issues in this Application.

The applicant shall deliver his submission to the proposed respondent and the witness and file them on or before April 29, 2011. The proposed respondent and the witness will respond to the Request on or before May 6, 2011.

8There is no indication as of yet that the applicant has complied with the direction to deliver a copy of the Request to name a new individual respondent to that person. This aspect of the Request is denied for that reason. In any event, the applicant has not provided any substantial reason to add the proposed new respondent. Although the individual is named on one occasion in the complaint, a review of it does not indicate why the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of the Application would require this additional respondent.

9As regards the request that a proposed witness produce material that may or may not be in the applicant's social services file, the proposed witness has not yet responded to the Request for Order. In light of the adjournment the Tribunal will afford this witness a further seven days to respond to the Request and a determination will be made after that time.

10I am not seized of this case.