HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robert Spooner Applicant
-and-
Northumberland County Social Housing and Corporation of the County of Northumberland Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Genevieve Debane Date: May 15, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 976 Indexed as: Spooner v. Northumberland County Social Housing
Written Submissions
Robert Spooner, Applicant ) Jamie McGinnis, Counsel
Northumberland County Social Housing and ) Corporation of the County of Northumberland, ) Farah Malik, Counsel Respondents )
1The applicant filed his Application on April 15, 2010 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in housing. This matter is scheduled for hearing in Toronto on May 29, 30, and 31, 2012.
2This Interim Decision deals with the applicant's Request for an Order During Proceedings to permit three witnesses (two doctors and a hearing specialist) to testify by telephone conference. One witness is only available to testify on May 30 between 10:00 and 11:00, the other on May 30 between 1:00 and 3:00, and the last on May 31 between 12:00 and 1:30.
3I issued a Case Assessment Direction abridging the time for the respondents to respond to the Request. The respondents have opposed the applicant's Request for a number of reasons including that the applicant has failed to provide detailed witness statements and that it will not have enough time to cross-examine the three witnesses.
DECISION
4The Tribunal has the power pursuant to the Rules of Procedure to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious hearing. However, the Tribunal is concerned with the applicant's approach to the testimony of these three witnesses, including the lack of details about their intended evidence and the limited time that each witness is available to testify. Though the Tribunal is aware of the demands on medical professionals, it does not appear that the witnesses in this case are unable to testify at other times. Unfortunately, being called as a witness in a hearing often involves some inconvenience to a witness.
5In this case, it is appropriate that the applicant be permitted to call his three witnesses via telephone conference, however, his witnesses are not available for a sufficiently long enough time to permit the respondents to cross-examine them. Further, the Tribunal agrees with the respondents that the summary of these three witnesses' evidence does not comply with the Tribunal's Rules.
6The Tribunal finds therefore that it is appropriate to Order the applicant to provide detailed witness statements in advance of the hearing. During the teleconference the witnesses will adopt these detailed witness statements and this will constitute their evidence-in-chief. During the allocated time, the respondents can cross-examine the witnesses and the applicant may ask appropriate questions in reply if necessary.
Order
7The Tribunal orders:
a. The three witnesses shall be permitted to testify via telephone conference and it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that they have the appropriate contact information at the hearing;
b. The applicant must canvass the full availability of these three witness for the full three days of hearing and advise the Tribunal and respondents by May 23, 2012;
c. By no later than May 23, 2012, the applicant must provide three detailed witness statements (one for each witness) which comply with the requirements of the Tribunal's Rules 17.1 and 17.2 to the respondents and file with the Tribunal. The witnesses will adopt their statement as their evidence in chief at the hearing; and
d. The applicant must provide the respondents and the Tribunal with the curriculum vitae of each witness by May 23, 2012.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of May, 2012.
"signed by"____________________
Genevieve Debane Vice-chair