Remtulla v. The Athletic Club (Trainyards) Inc., 2014 HRTO 175

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ruhaina Remtulla Applicant

-and-

The Athletic Club (Trainyards) Inc. and Controlex Corporation Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: February 5, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 175 Indexed as: Remtulla v. The Athletic Club (Trainyards) Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ruhaina Remtulla, Applicant Alayna Miller, Counsel

The Athletic Club (Trainyards) Inc., Respondent Brian MacDonald, Counsel

1The date for hearing of this Application – March 3, 2014 – is fast approaching. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request to extend time for providing two witness statements to the respondents and the Tribunal, as well as her request that the witnesses be allowed to testify by telephone or videoconference.

2The witnesses are medical doctors. Dr. Giaccone is a neurologist who treats the applicant. Dr. Saleh appears to be a general practitioner who does not treat the applicant but has taken the same classes at the respondent’s facility as the applicant.

3There is an explanation as to why the witness statement of Dr. Giaccone is filed late, but it is not particularly compelling. There is no explanation for the late filing of Dr. Saleh’s statement. On the other hand, apart from asserting that the late filing of these statements by 14 days is prejudicial, the respondent does not explain how or why this is so.

4Although the applicant’s justification is weak, the respondent still has time to prepare to deal with the issues raised in these witness statements. For this reason the applicant will be allowed to call these witnesses.

5Having said that, at the outset of the hearing the applicant should be prepared to address the admissibility and utility of some or all of Dr. Saleh’s evidence, including the extent to which it may be duplicative of Dr. Giaccone’s.

6The applicant has not provided any reason why the evidence of these two witnesses should be taken by telephone. The nature of their evidence and the relevance of that evidence to central facts in issue are such that it would be inappropriate to take their evidence by telephone. The applicant has also not explained why their evidence should be taken by videoconference, or even addressed how this might be done and who should bear the cost of arranging this. This request is denied.

Order

7The applicant’s request to extend time to file the witness statements of Dr. Giaccone and Dr. Saleh is granted.

8The applicant’s request that Dr. Giaccone and Dr. Saleh be allowed to testify by telephone or videoconference is denied.