Ihasz v. Ontario (Revenue), 2013 HRTO 784

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ronald Ihasz Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Revenue Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: May 10, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 784 Indexed as: Ihasz v. Ontario (Revenue)

APPEARANCES

Ronald Ihasz, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Revenue, Respondent Paul Meier, 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 reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The hearing of this matter was scheduled to be heard on January 14, 15 and 16, 2013, in Toronto. The parties spent January 14, 2013 in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the matter through mediation/adjudication. The January 15 and 16, 2013 hearing dates were adjourned because the applicant’s health prevented him from attending. In Ihasz v. Ontario (Revenue), 2013 HRTO 333, an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, I dismissed the applicant’s requests that I recuse myself because of an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias and for the Tribunal allow him to re-open a related application that he withdrew. In that Interim Decision, I also directed the parties to communicate with each other and provide the Tribunal with dates on which they are both available on three consecutive days to continue the hearing of this matter. The parties, however, have been unable to agree upon dates and the applicant has requested accommodation regarding the duration, location and format of the hearing. This Interim Decision addresses these scheduling issues.

The Applicant’s Accommodation Request

3By e-mail message dated March 5, 2013, the applicant requested that the Tribunal conduct the hearing in one day or by telephone. The applicant submitted that he would be unable to attend three straight days of hearing due to his current health situation and the fact that he is prone to mental breakdowns. The applicant also requested that that the hearing be scheduled in a location in or near Burlington, Ontario, which is halfway between Toronto, where the hearing is currently scheduled and St. Catharines, where the applicant lives.

The Respondent’s Response

4The respondent responded to the request on March 5, 2013, by e-mail. The respondent submitted that the hearing should remain in Toronto. The respondent submitted that the applicant did not provide any medical information describing the limitations or restrictions that would preclude him from traveling to Toronto for the hearing of his Application. The respondent noted, on the other hand that its instructing client and witnesses work in Oshawa and in North York its counsel works in Toronto, whereas the applicant is not calling any witnesses. The respondent submitted that relocating the hearing to Burlington is an unnecessary inconvenience for at least five people.

The Medical Evidence

5By e-mail message dated March 14, 2013, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide medical documentation to support his accommodation request by March 28, 2013. The applicant provided a letter from his physician on March 26, 2013. The letter states as follows:

Mr. Ihasz has indicated to me that he feels he would find it extremely difficult to attend his human rights hearing if it runs more than two days. Given his disability this is a reasonable assumption. He also wishes to have the hearing held closer to his home in St Catherines. If this could be taken in consideration it would be greatly appreciated.

By e-mail message dated April 3, 2013, the Tribunal invited the respondent to make submissions regarding this medical evidence. The respondent provided submissions by e-mail message dated April 5, 2013 and submitted that the Tribunal should not change the venue of the hearing. The respondent submitted that the applicant has not indicated any medical limitations or restrictions that would prevent him from traveling to Toronto for the hearing of his Application. Rather, the respondent submitted that the applicant’s physician simply set out the applicant’s preferences. The respondent stated, however, that it is amenable to having no more than two consecutive hearing dates scheduled at one time.

6The applicant submitted in an e-mail message dated April 5, 2013 that his doctor had actually indicated that two days was the maximum the applicant could attend for the entire hearing, not that he could attend more days provided they were scheduled in two-day blocks.

Analysis and Decision

7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Hearings in Regional Centres states as follows:

The HRTO is committed to making its hearings and mediations accessible. The HRTO will hold hearings in the following regional centres: Toronto; Kingston; London; North Bay; Ottawa; Sarnia; Sault Ste. Marie; St. Catharines; Sudbury; Timmins; Thunder Bay; and Windsor.

The HRTO may hold hearings in locations other than the ones listed above in order to accommodate Code-related or other needs of the parties or their witnesses. Any request for a change in location should be in writing and made to the Registrar as soon as possible.

8The Tribunal scheduled the hearing of this matter in Toronto because it is the regional centre closest to the location where the events in question occurred. As noted in the Practice Direction, the Tribunal may change the location of a hearing to accommodate Code-related or other needs. The applicant’s requests regarding the scheduling of the hearing is Code-related, since it is based on his “current health condition”. However, the applicant provided very little detail about how his condition prevents him from attending a hearing in Toronto, in person. The letter provided by the applicant’s doctor is also inadequate. The doctor does not state the restrictions imposed by the applicant’s disability that would prevent him from attending more than two days of hearing. Rather, he merely states that it would be a “reasonable assumption” in light of his disability. The doctor simply reiterated the applicant’s desire for a hearing in St. Catharines and provided no medical basis for concluding that the applicant is unable to attend a hearing in Toronto. Given the medical evidence available at this time, I am unable to conclude that changing the location for the hearing, allowing the applicant to testify by telephone or limiting the length of the hearing is required to accommodate the applicant’s disability.

9The Tribunal is committed to expeditious proceedings and employs various case management techniques to make efficient use of hearing time, including using, where feasible, agreed statements of fact; allowing parties to adopt witness statements in testimony; and allowing the parties to provide submissions in writing. Nonetheless, the Tribunal cannot guarantee the length of a hearing and would not limit the evidence or submissions parties may provide only to meet an arbitrary time limit. In circumstances where a party established his or her inability to attend a multiple day hearing, the appropriate approach would in my view be to schedule hearing days in reasonable intervals.

Order:

10The applicant’s accommodation request is dismissed. In light of the respondent’s agreement to schedule the hearing in blocks of no more than two days, the Tribunal shall schedule the matter for a two-day hearing in Toronto.