Munroe v. Ottawa (City), 2013 HRTO 846

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 Date: May 17, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 846 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 May 31, 2013 and the need for the applicant to file his hearing documents as directed by the Tribunal.

ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

2On May 7, 2013, the Tribunal received a request for an adjournment from the applicant’s representative stating that the applicant is in the 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’s representative submits that the applicant is not scheduled to return home from hospital until the end of June 2013. The applicant’s representative requests that the hearing be adjourned until the end of July or August 2013 or, alternatively, be conducted by teleconference.

3This is the applicant’s second adjournment request. In Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 479, dated March 22, 2013, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s previous adjournment request of the hearing then scheduled for April 16, 2013, on the basis that the applicant was also at that time in the hospital.

4The Tribunal has not received a response from the respondent to the applicant’s current request.

5The 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.

6I am prepared to allow the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the May 31, 2013, hearing date based on the information before me about the applicant’s current medical condition. The re-scheduled hearing will be an in-person hearing rather than a hearing by conference call given that it is a hearing on the merits that will require the testimony of witnesses and the opportunity for parties to cross-examine these witnesses.

7The 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

8In its March 22, 2013 Interim Decision the Tribunal directed the applicant to file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The specific materials the applicant was required to file were set out in the Tribunal’s Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated August 30, 2012.

9The applicant was given a deadline of May 4, 2013, to file these materials with the Tribunal and to deliver copies to the respondent (or to provide a note from a medical practitioner to explain how the applicant’s medical condition prevented the applicant from preparing and submitting the written materials by May 4, 2013). The applicant has not met this deadline, as directed.

10The applicant is again directed to provide the documents, witness list and witness statements that he intends to rely on at the hearing and to do so no later than 45 days prior to the date of the re-scheduled hearing. The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. The applicant’s witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant.

11If the applicant fails to meet this deadline the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.