King v. Toronto Public Library Board, 2013 HRTO 931

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Randy King

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Public Library Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: May 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 931

Indexed as: King v. Toronto Public Library Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Randy King, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Public Library Board, Respondent

David Gourlay, Counsel

1This Interim Decision is written to address the applicant’s further request for an adjournment of the hearing dates in this matter, which are currently scheduled for June 4, 6 and 11, 2013.

2On May 27, 2013, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to request an adjournment of the hearing. He states that he has been attempting to prepare for the hearing but has done so with great difficulty. In support of his adjournment request, the applicant attached a letter from his family physician, Dr. Gutman, dated May 25, 2013, which the applicant says explains why he needs an adjournment. In his letter, Dr. Gutman states:

[The applicant] is dealing with a number of medical issues both personal and family.

Both of his parents remain in very fragile health and require a significant amount of time for attending to and support. Mr. King is their main informal care giver and as they both have a limited life expectancy this is taking up much of his time.

Mr. King is still struggling with the after effects of a severe beating and two more minor assaults. I see him on average four times a month and we are still working on dealing with both the physical and emotional after effects. This is a slow and difficult process.

Mr. King has traumatic fibromyalgia which causes persistent body pain and fatigue.

I believe all the above factors compromise his ability to be appropriately prepared for his tribunal and I believe warrant a postponement. None of the above issues are caused by him or are under his control and he is doing his best to deal with them.

3The applicant states that he would prefer if the hearing in this matter was adjourned to February 2014, but if the hearing needs to take place this year, he has requested dates in early November 2013.

4The respondent has consented to the adjournment in recognition of the applicant’s difficult personal circumstances. The respondent has indicated its preference for the matter to be re-scheduled for early November 2013.

5I too empathize with the applicant’s difficult personal circumstances. However, I must balance this against the need for this matter to proceed in as timely a manner as possible. The events at issue in this matter date back over four years now, and I am concerned about the erosion of memories and the continuing burden that this long-outstanding matter places of all individuals involved.

6I note that this matter already has been adjourned on three previous occasions, all at the applicant’s request. However, my greatest concern is that the reasons for seeking an adjournment at this time largely reflect the same reasons provided by the applicant for seeking the previous adjournment of hearing dates scheduled for January and February 2013. I am further concerned that the issues raised in Dr. Gutman’s letter, which existed at the time the last adjournment was granted in January 2013 and apparently still exist to this day, show no indication of any abatement in the reasonably near future.

7While I sympathize with the struggles of dealing with parents in fragile health, that situation existed (and appears to have been more dire) in January 2013 and continues to exist today and there is no indication that it will not continue to exist in November 2013 or even February 2014. The severe beating to which Dr. Gutman refers occurred in March 2011, over two years ago. While I appreciate that dealing with the physical and emotional after-effects is a slow and difficult process, this situation existed in January 2013, still exists today, and there is no indication that it won’t continue to exist in November 2013 or February 2014. Finally, I am aware that the applicant’s medical condition of fibromyalgia is a chronic condition, and there is no indication that this condition will improve by November 2013 or February 2014.

8I appreciate, as stated by Dr. Gutman, that none of the issues raised are caused by the applicant or are under his control, and accept that he is doing his best to deal with them. I also am aware that Dr. Gutman has indicated that all of these issues compromise the applicant’s ability to prepare for the hearing. What I do not have, however, is any indication that these issues will resolve themselves by November 2013 or even by February 2014, such that the applicant will be in any better position to proceed with the hearing at that time than he is now. Further, in light of the apparently ongoing and/or chronic nature of the issues raised and the fact that they have largely continued at least since January 2013, there is every reason to believe that these issues will continue to affect the applicant in the future.

9The reality is that, at some point, the applicant will need to decide whether to proceed with the hearing despite the difficult circumstances he faces. In light of the lack of any indication that these circumstances will abate within a reasonable period of time and in light of the lengthy period of time since the underlying incidents occurred, the fact that the applicant already has been granted three previous adjournments, and the ongoing burden placed on the individuals involved, it is my view that granting an adjournment in these circumstances would not be appropriate.

10For all of the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s request for adjournment is denied, and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 4, 6 and 11, 2013.