Savage v. Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2012 HRTO 806

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Nick Savage Applicant

-and-

The Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology and Wendy Charlebois Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: April 20, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 806 Indexed as: Savage v. Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nick Savage, Applicant: Self-represented The Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology and Wendy Charlebois, Respondents: Daniel Michaluk, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") on January 4, 2012 alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services. The applicant consents to mediation.

2The respondents filed a Response on March 12, 2012. The respondents consent to mediation.

3The applicant file a Reply dated March 26, 2012. He also filed a Request for Order During Proceedings dated March 26, 2012 ("RFOP") requesting a 45 day extension to file a "proper" Reply. He submits that he is in his last month of his college semester and requires additional time to consult with a lawyer and to form a "proper response" to the issues in the Response. He notes that he filed his Reply to the best of his ability "in case that the extension was denied". He requests that the Tribunal address his issue by way of conference call.

4The respondents filed a Response to the RFOP objecting to the applicant's RFOP. They submit that the applicant has already filed a "proper" Reply. Further, they submit that since the applicant's allegations "heavily target" the personal respondent, the Tribunal should recognize the unique prejudice to the personal respondent that would be caused by any delay in this proceeding.

5In the circumstances of this case, the date of the allegations in the Application and the date that the Application was filed, the Tribunal grants the applicant's request for a 45 day extension, commencing March 26, 2012. If the applicant does not file a further Reply by the end of the extension, then the Reply that was already filed will be the one considered by the Tribunal. Noting that both parties have agreed to mediation, the Tribunal will place the file in the queue to be scheduled for mediation. The receipt of the applicant's further Reply will not affect the date for which the mediation is scheduled.

6If the applicant requires accommodation at the mediation, or, if the mediation is not successful at the hearing, the applicant can request accommodation from the Tribunal. He may wish to review the Tribunal's Policy on Accessibility and Accommodation, which is found on the Tribunal's website at www.hrto.ca, or by calling the Tribunal and requesting a copy which can be mailed or emailed to him.

7I am not seized of this matter.