Diane Malabre v. LMC Toronto, 2012 HRTO 158

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Diane Malabre

Applicant

-and-

LMC Toronto, Ericka Ho-Sang and Ronnie Aronson

Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 20, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 158

Indexed as: Malabre v. LMC Toronto

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) filed by the respondents seeking an Order that the Application be adjourned. The applicant takes no position on the Request. The hearing is scheduled for two days beginning February 7, 2012

2The respondent states that the applicant’s documents should have been produced on December 23, 2011, and were not produced until January 12, 2012. As such, the respondents state the matter should be adjourned in order to afford the respondents an opportunity “to fairly and adequately review the documents provided on January 12 and to fairly and adequately prepare for the hearing”. The respondents do not provide any reasons for their claim that there is insufficient time to fairly and adequately prepare for the hearing.

3The hearing will proceed as scheduled. The document brief delivered by the applicant on January 12, 2012, contains nine documents. The first four are letters sent to the applicant by the respondent, followed by the Application Form 1; the respondents’ Response Form 2; an Interim Decision in this matter; the respondents’ Request for a summary hearing and finally the applicant’s will-say, which largely repeats the narrative from paragraph 8 of the Application Form 1 which has been in the respondents possession since March 2010.

4I am not satisfied that there is any prejudice to the respondents’ ability to prepare for this hearing despite the late production of the applicants’ materials, which as I have indicated above are, aside from the pleadings in this case and not necessary to produce, largely documents created by the respondents themselves.

5I am not seized of this case.