Shahenaz Alibhai v. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc., 2013 HRTO 415

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shahenaz Alibhai

Applicant

-and-

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: March 11, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 415 Indexed as: Alibhai v. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide

APPEARANCES

Shahenaz Alibhai, Applicant Self-represented

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc., Respondent Jonathan Maier, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and age.

2The first two days of hearing in this matter were held on October 4 and 5, 2012 and the Tribunal scheduled the hearing to continue on February 13 and 14, 2013. The parties completed their evidence on February 13, 2013 and returned to make their submissions in argument on February 14, 2013. The applicant completed her submissions in chief and the respondent proceeded with its submissions. Unfortunately, the applicant fell ill while the respondent was in the midst of its submissions and was unable to continue with the hearing.

3By Case Assessment Direction dated February 19, 2013, the Tribunal directed the parties to communicate with each other and provide the Tribunal with dates on which they are both available for a half-day hearing in person in order that they may complete their submissions. The Tribunal scheduled this half-day hearing for the morning of March 15, 2013.

4On February 28, 2013, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal by e-mail. She noted that she met with her family doctor after the Family Day long-week-end (Family Day was February 18, 2013) as a result of the episode of illness she experienced during the hearing and had occasion to speak to him about this Application. The applicant stated that they discussed the fact that the respondent objected to the admissibility of several doctors’ notes the applicant presented in evidence (although none of her physician’s testified). The applicant indicated that her doctor was willing to testify and answer any questions that respondent’s counsel may have for him. The applicant therefore requested that the Tribunal subpoena her doctor to testify.

5The respondent responded to the applicant’s request by e-mail message dated February 28, 2013. The respondent opposes the request. In summary, the respondent submitted that the applicant presented her evidence on October 4 and 5, 2012 and was well aware that the admissibility and potential evidentiary weight of the doctors’ notes she presented was an issue, since the respondent raised objections regarding these documents. Nonetheless, the applicant did not have any of her doctors testify. The respondent submitted that it is now far too late to allow the applicant to re-open her case.

Analysis and Decision

6The applicant’s request amounts to a request to re-open her case and the request is denied. The respondent raised objections to the admissibility of the doctors’ notes proffered by the applicant in early October 2012, but the applicant made no effort have any of her physicians testify until after both parties concluded their evidence. It appears that the applicant’s discussion with her family doctor occurred as a coincidence. The parties would have completed the case in its entirety on February 14, 2013 had the applicant not become ill that day. As noted in the CAD of February 19, 2013, the purpose of the hearing on March 15, 2013 is to allow the parties to complete their submissions in argument, not to present evidence. The parties to an application before the Tribunal are expected to pursue their cases in a timely, diligent manner. The applicant has not met this expectation regarding her medical evidence and in my view it would not fair, just or expeditious to allow her to re-open her case at this point.

Order

7The applicant’s request is dismissed. The hearing on March 15, 2013 shall be limited to the completion of the respondent’s submissions in argument and the applicant’s reply argument, if any.