Ryder v. Ryerson University Students’ Union, 2012 HRTO 1286

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Donna Ryder

Applicant

-and-

Ryerson University Students’ Union, Continuing Education Students’ Association of Ryerson, Palin Foundation, Ryerson Students’ Centre/Student Campus Centre and Joel Duff

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: June 28, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1286 Indexed as: Ryder v. Ryerson University Students’ Union

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donna Ryder, Applicant

Self-represented

1In an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, 2012 HRTO 173, released on January 23, 2012, the Tribunal ordered a one day preliminary hearing to address several outstanding procedural and jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal scheduled the preliminary hearing on July 26, 2012. In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal directed the parties to deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases they intend to rely upon no later than 14 days prior to the hearing.

2On May 14, 2012, the applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal, which was for some reason dated June 24, 2011, on her behalf and on behalf of Frank Nyitray, the applicant in Application 2010-05563-I, a related, but as yet separate, Application in which the Tribunal has also ordered a preliminary hearing. In the letter, the applicant requests permission to file any documents or cases she intends to rely upon within 12 days of the preliminary hearing. In support of the request, the applicant states that Mr. Nyitray had only recently been able to consult with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and that amendment of the disclosure deadline would accommodate both the applicant’s and Mr. Nyitray’s disabilities. The applicant states her disability is communication based.

3Whether Mr. Nyitray, the applicant in a different Application, has been able to contact counsel is irrelevant to the applicant’s ability to meet her disclosure obligations. While the Tribunal will of course give careful consideration to accommodation requests, the applicant did not state how her disability prevented her from gathering and producing documents or jurisprudence in the timeline set by the Tribunal. Simply asserting that one has a disability is not sufficient.

4The request is denied.