Grant Hutchinson v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2013 HRTO 593

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Grant Hutchinson

Applicant

-and-

Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: April 10, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 593

Indexed as: Hutchinson v. Seneca College

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Grant Hutchinson, Applicant

Self-represented

Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, Respondent

Ann Burke, 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 and reprisal because of disability.

2By Interim Decision dated November 23, 2012, the Tribunal granted the respondent’s request for a summary hearing. The summary hearing has been scheduled to take place by teleconference on April 15, 2013.

3On February 26, 2013, the applicant made the following requests regarding the summary hearing:

a. The ability to both video and audio record the hearing for public consumption because he intends to stream the entire hearing online so all “Seneca students and staff can benefit from the experience”;

b. An in-person hearing so that he can face his “accusers”;

c. Accommodation for his disability including a typist and counsellor trained in calming anxious people.

4On April 2, 2013, the Tribunal requested further information from the applicant in order to determine whether his requests relate to any Code-related needs that he may have. The applicant was advised to include any medical documents that would support his requests.

5On April 2, 2013, the applicant provided a medical assessment dated November 30, 2012 to the Tribunal and respondent’s counsel.

6The applicant has requested an in-person hearing so that he can face his “accusers”. The medical assessment provided by the applicant does not provide information that supports the need for an in-person hearing as a form of accommodation for a disability. As such, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to convert the teleconference to an in-person hearing. The summary hearing will proceed on April 15, 2013 by teleconference as scheduled.

7The applicant has requested a typist and counsellor to attend the hearing. The applicant is entitled to have a support person of his choosing attend with him during the teleconference and to provide support to the applicant before and after the teleconference. The support person can also assist the applicant in taking notes during the teleconference.

8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Recording Hearings permits parties to record hearings with the panel’s consent. The Tribunal may permit parties to self-record hearings to assist them in proceedings before the Tribunal such as for the purpose of supplementing their own notes. The applicant has requested permission to record the summary hearing because he intends to stream the entire hearing on-line so that all Seneca students and staff can “benefit from the experience”. In my view, this is not an appropriate reason to permit the applicant to self-record the hearing and the applicant’s request is denied.