HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Barbara Kueber
Applicant
-and-
The Corporation of the County of Grey, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Kueber v. Grey (County)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Barbara Kueber, Applicant
Self-represented
The Corporation of the County of Grey, Respondent
Andréa Dedrick, Counsel
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Respondents
S. Zachary Green, Counsel
introduction
1This Application is scheduled for a hearing in Toronto on March 4 and 5, 2014.
2On December 6, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend the remedial portion of her Application. She did not state how she wanted it amended. She also requested that access to the hearing and access to portions of the hearing record be restricted because of pending civil litigation.
3On January 9, 2014, the Tribunal received correspondence from the applicant requesting a change of venue for the hearing from Toronto to Lucknow, Ontario, for medical reasons. The applicant stated that as a result of her serious illness, it would be extremely difficult for her to attend the hearing, with the additional travel time to Toronto. The applicant did not provide any medical documentation to support this request. She did advise the Tribunal that she has been diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer, a serious muscular condition and pain disorders.
4The Respondent County of Grey objects to the applicant’s request to restrict portions of the hearing record. It also objects to the applicant’s request to amend the Application because the applicant has provided no particulars with respect to her request. The County of Grey consents to the applicant’s request to change the venue of the hearing and states it would be more convenient and economical for the County to have the hearing in Lucknow.
5The Respondent Minister of Community and Social Services and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care (the “Ministries”) object to the applicant’s request to amend the Application and take no position with respect to her request to limit public access to the hearing or its record. They object to the applicant’s request to change the venue of the hearing and suggest the hearing could take place by teleconference.
6By Case Assessment Direction dated February 4, 2014, the Tribunal requested medical documentation from the applicant to support her request for a change of venue.
7On February 12, 2014, the applicant provided information confirming that she has been diagnosed with four medical conditions, the latest one being a diagnosis of breast cancer in February 2013.
Decision
8The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Hearings in Regional Centres states:
The HRTO is committed to making its hearings and mediations accessible. The HRTO will hold hearings in the following regional centres: Toronto; Hamilton; Kingston; London; North Bay; Ottawa; Sarnia; Sault Ste. Marie; St. Catharines; Sudbury; Timmins; Thunder Bay; and Windsor.
The HRTO may hold hearings in locations other than the ones listed above in order to accommodate Code-related or other needs of the parties or their witnesses. Any request for a change in location should be in writing and made to the Registrar as soon as possible
9The Notice of Hearing confirms the parties’ right to accommodation of Code-related needs and refers the parties to the Tribunal’s Policy of Accessibility and Accommodation.
10The Ministries object to the change in venue because the applicant failed to make the request as soon as possible despite numerous communications by the Tribunal involving the scheduling of the hearing.
11While I agree the applicant should have made her request for accommodation earlier, it may well be that she did not appreciate the need for accommodation until the hearing dates were approaching. While having the matter heard by teleconference would solve the applicant’s need for accommodation, proceeding electronically would be difficult given the number of parties, the number of witnesses and the extent of the evidence that will be filed.
12The applicant has demonstrated that it will be difficult for her to attend a hearing in Toronto because of her serious medical illness. For this reason, the hearing will be held in Lucknow, Ontario.
13In light of the decision to hold the hearing in Lucknow, the issue of restricting the hearing may not be a practical concern for the applicant. This issue will be addressed if it becomes a live issue at the hearing. With respect to restricting part of the hearing record, that decision will be made when the evidence is introduced at the hearing. It is premature to make that decision now.
14The Tribunal will not address the applicant’s request to amend the Application because there are no particulars attached to that request. It appears that the request relates to an argument the applicant intends to make in support of her case. She is free to do so at the conclusion of the hearing.
order
15The hearing will take place in Lucknow, Ontario, on March 4 and 5, 2014. The Registrar will advise the parties of the location of the hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of February, 2013.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair