A.B. v. Timbercreek Asset Management, 2013 HRTO 538

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.B.

Applicant

-and-

Timbercreek Asset Management

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: April 3, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 538

Indexed as: A.B. v. Timbercreek Asset Management

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

A.B., Applicant

Self-represented

Timbercreek Asset Management, Respondent

Kristin A. Ley, Counsel

Introduction

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

2This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for an Adjournment of the April 8 and 9, 2013 hearing dates scheduled in this matter.

3The applicant has requested several extensions of time for delivering her Reply and for complying with her obligations regarding disclosure pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. As of this date, she has not yet filed her Reply in this matter, nor has she complied with her obligations pursuant to Rules 16 and 17.

4In an email to the Tribunal, she made a Request for Adjournment, including a doctor’s note dated December 18, 2012, which stated:

Patient requires more time to prepare her case with an attorney for tribunal. She needs time to have expert opinions to be presented. She has medical symptoms affecting her respiratory tract and fatigue with loss of suitable housing.

5On March 14, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, directing the applicant to file her Reply and to comply with her obligations pursuant to Rules 16 and 17. It also indicated that her Request for Adjournment would not be addressed at this time, as there was insufficient information before the Tribunal. It advised that the scheduled hearing dates would proceed unless and until she provided medical evidence “indicating that she is unable, for medical reasons, to proceed with a hearing on April 8 and 9”.

6On March 21, 2013, the applicant sent the Tribunal, and copied to the respondent, a medical note from a doctor at a centre for “Neuropsychiatry and sleep medicine”, dated March 20, 2013, and stating as follows:

[the applicant] has been unable to meet deadlines for presenting her disclosure/opinions in time for 3/21/13 and hearing April 8/9.

She has been aware for months but is debilitated with fatigue and has had long waiting times for physician visits. We feel she requires an adjournment for the hearing of at least 4 months pending respiratory consult.

7On March 27, 2013, counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal, opposing the adjournment and noting that in this matter, there has been a “lengthy history of attempts by the Applicant to extend the time for complying with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, all of which have been granted by the Tribunal” and stating that all of the requests have been made “either on the date compliance was required or shortly before”. The respondent submitted that the medical documentation was insufficient as it did not “provide information about how her disabilities affect her ability to prepare her case or participate in a hearing or how those disabilities could be accommodated”. The respondent expressed its concern that the applicant is requesting an “indefinite stay of proceedings”, which would be unfair to the respondent and would cause it prejudice. It also requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application. In the event that the Tribunal grants the applicant’s request for an adjournment, the respondent also queried the possibility of using one of the hearing dates for mediation or for a case management conference.

8I find that the medical information provided by the applicant, while not very detailed, does support her Request for an Adjournment for medical reasons. It states that she has been unable, for medical reasons, to meet the deadlines required for participation in a hearing April 8 and 9, 2013. Accordingly, her Request for an Adjournment of those dates is granted.

Mediation/Adjudication

9The parties are directed to Rule 15A for information regarding the Tribunal’s mediation/adjudication process.

10The parties shall advise the Tribunal by Thursday, April 4, 2013, if they are interested in taking advantage of mediation/adjudication on April 8, 2013, on the understanding that if the mediation is unsuccessful, the hearing will not proceed on that day, as the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing dates in this matter has been granted.

If the parties do not agree to mediation/adjudication or if mediation/adjudication does not result in a settlement of this matter

11If the parties do not agree to mediation/adjudication or if mediation/adjudication does not result in a settlement of this matter, the Registrar will schedule hearing dates which are no earlier than six months from the date of this Interim Decision.

12If the parties do not agree to mediation/adjudication or if mediation/adjudication does not result in a settlement of this matter, as the applicant’s Reply in this matter continues to be outstanding, the applicant is directed to file her Reply with the Tribunal no later than July 22, 2013.

13The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing which parties receive provides them with information regarding adjournments. Last minute requests for adjournment are strongly discouraged and parties are reminded that adjournments are granted for “exceptional circumstances”.

14The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing also reminds the parties of the Tribunal’s Policy on Accessibility and Accommodation. That policy attempts to accommodate needs of participants in an Application that arise from personal characteristics reflected in the Code’s grounds of discrimination, which include disability.

15If the parties do not agree to mediation/adjudication or if mediation/adjudication does not result in a settlement of this matter, and in the event that the applicant seeks accommodation for the hearing dates which will be scheduled by the Registrar, she is reminded that it is her responsibility to provide the Tribunal with sufficient information that her needs may be assessed and balanced with the requirements of the Application process, and accommodation may be planned in advance.

16I agree that the prospect of an indefinite stay raises considerations of fairness to the respondents. Accordingly, the applicant is further advised that should she request any further adjournments in this matter, the Tribunal may well require more detailed medical documentation which addresses why she would be unable to participate in a hearing and to provide information regarding what specific accommodation she would require in order to enable her to participate in the hearing, as well as a realistic opportunity for the Tribunal to plan such accommodation. The Tribunal must also balance the needs of any one party with its responsibility to provide a fair, just and expeditious hearing.

17I am not seized.