HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kirk Munroe
Applicant
-and-
City of Ottawa
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Munroe v. Ottawa (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kirk Munroe, Applicant
Emily Blondeau, Next Friend
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing which is scheduled for April 16, 2013 and the need for the applicant to file his hearing documents as directed by the Tribunal.
ADJOURNMENT REQUEST
2On March 12, 2013, the Tribunal received a request for an adjournment from the applicant’s representative stating that the applicant is in hospital and not in condition to attend a hearing. The applicant’s representative submits that the applicant is not independent enough to use Para Transpo, not able to walk and not able to sit in a wheel chair more than an hour. The applicant is apparently waiting to attend spinal rehabilitation at Ottawa Hospital. The applicant’s representative iss of the view that it is uncertain that the applicant’s condition will change much by the hearing date.
3The Tribunal has not received a response from the respondent to the applicant’s request.
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments (the “Practice Direction”) indicates that the Tribunal discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request the rescheduling of a mediation or hearing. The Practice Direction further states:
Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO [the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario] will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.
5I am prepared to allow the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the April 16, 2013, hearing date based on the information before me about the applicant’s current medical condition.
6The hearing will be re-scheduled within 12 weeks of the adjourned hearing date. Scheduling within 12 weeks of an adjourned hearing date is the Tribunal’s practice as set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction. Timely rescheduling of hearings supports the Tribunal’s commitment to resolving applications expeditiously.
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS
7On August 30, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing that confirmed that the hearing date to consider the applicant’s Application was scheduled for April 16, 2013. It also communicated that by March 4, 2013, 45 days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing, the parties needed to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal:
a list of all documents they intend to rely on at the hearing;
a copy of each document on that list for the Tribunal;
a copy of every document on that list for each party or confirmation every document has already been provided to the other parties;
a witness list that includes the name of every witness, including expert witnesses, they intend to present to the Tribunal;
a statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness;
where they intend to rely on the evidence of a proposed expert witness, a copy of the expert’s written report or a full summary of the expert’s proposed evidence and the expert’s curriculum vitae;
the Statement of Delivery to show that the list of documents and the documents have been served on the other parties.
8The Tribunal has received the documents, list of witnesses and witness statements that the respondent intends to rely on by the March 4, 2013 deadline. The Tribunal has not received any materials from the applicant.
9The Tribunal’s Rules require that parties provide these materials, as directed. In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc., 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained the importance of meeting these requirements:
The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side’s case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing. In appropriate cases, adoption of the witness statements may take the place of examination-in-chief of the witness. Witness statements should therefore be detailed and set out the particular evidence that the witness will give, rather than just general topics. A witness statement should be filed for each witness, including an applicant or individual respondent. Where the Application or Response itself makes clear the proposed testimony, the witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application or Response is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant or individual respondent.
10The Tribunal is prepared, under the circumstances, to set a new deadline for the applicant to file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17. The applicant has until May 4, 2013, to provide the documents, witness list and witness statements that he intends to rely on at the hearing.
11If the applicant fails to meet this May 4, 2013 deadline the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. If the applicant is of the view that he has a medical condition that prevents him from meeting this deadline the applicant will be required to provide, prior to May 4, 2013, a note from a medical practitioner to explain how the applicant’s medical condition affects the applicant’s ability to prepare and submit the written materials required by the Tribunal and an explanation for why he is unable to meet the May 4, 2013, given that he has had since August 2012 to prepare his documents and witness information.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of March, 2013.
“signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair