Eric Mattison v. Town of Pelham and Sarah Thomson, 2014 HRTO 1740

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eric Mattison Applicant

-and-

Town of Pelham and Sarah Thomson Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: December 2, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1740 Indexed as: Mattison v. Pelham (Town)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Eric Mattison, Applicant Self-represented

Town of Pelham and Sarah Thomson, Respondents Terry Hill, Counsel

1A hearing in respect of this Application was re-scheduled for December 3, 2014, in St. Catharines. On December 1, 2014, the applicant wrote an email to the Tribunal (copied to the respondents), requesting an adjournment. In this request he notes that he has health issues that prevent him from proceeding to hearing. He subsequently obtained a brief medical note from his physician confirming the medical conditions cited by him in his request and indicating that the applicant “should take 1 mth off work.” The applicant’s son has written in, submitting that these medical conditions prevent his father from proceeding to the hearing.

2Counsel for the respondents objected to the adjournment request, which is the second request made by the applicant for an adjournment for medical reasons. I would note that this objection occurred prior to the receipt of the medical note. The Tribunal acknowledges that such requests, especially one such as this that occurs at the last minute, cause a great deal of inconvenience for the respondents, which have made arrangements to present their case.

3Adjournment requests, in particular last minute requests, also represent an impediment to the Tribunal’s mandate to provide a timely and expeditious process for resolving human rights disputes. The Tribunal must devote resources to the hearing, which cannot be redeployed at this late stage.

4As noted in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournment, the Tribunal will grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances unless the request comes within 14 days after the receipt of the Notice of Hearing. However, the Tribunal’s Practice Direction also recognizes that a medical condition that prevents a party from participating would constitute an exceptional circumstance.

5The applicant’s son has said his father will be consulting a lawyer to take some of the burden of presenting his case from him. By January 16, 2015, the applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal and respondents whether he has retained counsel. He shall also provide an updated note from his physician indicating when, if this is known, the applicant will be in sufficiently good health to participate in a hearing. If the physician is unable to provide a date at that time, then the applicant will be required to file updates every two months thereafter until a date is known.

6The Tribunal will not re-schedule this hearing until such time as the applicant receives medical clearance that he is able to participate. The applicant should be aware that his Application may, at some point, be dismissed if he is found to be incapable of participating in a hearing or if the respondents are able to demonstrate substantial prejudice caused by the delay in proceeding to hearing.

7The request for an adjournment of the December 3, 2014 hearing date is granted. The Registrar will contact the parties concerning a further date for the hearing upon receipt of the medical clearance set out above.