Tyler Himmrich v. The City of Hamilton, 2014 HRTO 1825

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Tyler Himmrich Applicant

-and-

The City of Hamilton Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: December 24, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1825 Indexed as: Himmrich v. Hamilton (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tyler Himmrich, Applicant Self-represented

The City of Hamilton, Respondent Daryn Jeffries, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. It is scheduled for a hearing on January 5 and 6, 2015.

Analysis

2On December 17, 2014, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because further information is required from the respondent, and because the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (the “Centre”) is not able to represent the applicant at the hearing.

3The Tribunal’s practice is to grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances. See Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Requests for Adjournments states that:

Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO 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.

4The applicant has failed to establish the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant an adjournment. The fact that the Centre is not representing the applicant at the hearing is not an exceptional circumstance. There is no indication in the file that the Centre was acting for the applicant at the hearing. The fact that the Centre represented the applicant at the mediation does not mean that it was acting for the applicant at the hearing. Further, although the applicant asserts that he does not have vital information from the respondent, he has given no indication as to what information he is referring to. The applicant has failed to establish the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant the adjournment. For this reason, the applicant’s adjournment request is denied.

5The applicant filed two Requests for Order During Proceeding (“RFOP”) on September 22 and November 20, 2014, wherein he is seeking, among other things, an order requiring certain individuals to appear at the hearing to give evidence, and an order compelling production of the qualifications of new hires. He is also requesting his employment file. It appears from the disclosure of the respondent’s pre-hearing documents that the applicant’s employment file has already been produced by the respondent.

6It is unclear to me at this time whether the individuals named by the applicant in his RFOP have relevant evidence to give at the hearing, and whether the further documentation sought by the applicant is relevant to the issues before me. I will be in a better position to make this determination after hearing the applicant’s evidence. As such, the applicant’s RFOP will be determined after the applicant’s evidence has been completed.

7The respondent filed an RFOP on December 2, 2014, seeking an order compelling the applicant to file his pre-hearing documents, namely, the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing and witness statements for the witnesses he intends to call. The respondent has also requested an order requiring the applicant to produce a recording that he intends to rely upon at the hearing.

8Given that the hearing dates are fast approaching, the applicant is directed to bring the tape recording to the hearing on January 5, 2015, and any other documents that have not been produced by him that he intends to rely upon. In the event the respondent requires additional time to review this disclosure, such time will be given. The admissibility of these documents will be determined at the hearing.

Order

9The applicant’s adjournment request is denied. The hearing will proceed on January 5, 2015 with the applicant’s evidence. The admissibility of the applicant’s evidence, including documentary evidence, will be decided at the hearing.

10I will determine the applicant’s request to call additional witnesses after the applicant’s evidence is heard. The additional witnesses do not have to be in attendance at the hearing on January 5, 2015. Further direction on this issue will be given at the hearing.

11The parties are advised of the Tribunal’s mediation/adjudication process set out in Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. A copy of the Tribunal’s mediation/adjudication agreement is attached to this Interim Decision for the parties’ review. The Tribunal will offer this process at the commencement of the hearing on January 5, 2015. If the parties agree, the hearing will commence with mediation/adjudication. If they do not agree, the hearing will commence with the applicant’s evidence.