Eric Mattison v. Town of Pelham and Sarah Thomson, 2014 HRTO 274

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: February 28, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 274

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 is scheduled for March 11, 2014 in St. Catharines. On February 17, 2014, the applicant wrote an email to the Tribunal (copied to the respondents), requesting an adjournment. In this request he notes that he had suffered a concussion approximately two months earlier and that he was still suffering from “serious complications” from it, which has resulted in a referral by his GP for an MRI and another referral to a neurologist.

2The applicant advised in that email that he had mailed a note from his GP in support of his request. When this note was still not received by the Tribunal, the Assistant Registrar wrote to him late in the day on February 25, 2014, asking for an electronic copy of the note. The applicant sent a scanned copy of a doctor’s note, confirming the applicant had suffered a concussion and saying that the applicant has had “forgetfulness” since. The doctor recommended “deferment” of the March 11, 2014. In the attached email, the applicant states that he requires, at minimum, a four to five month adjournment.

3The respondents responded on February 27, 2014, opposing the adjournment request. They take the position that the applicant appears to show no sign of neurological deficits that would impact on his ability to participate in a hearing and that any memory loss is not so significant that the applicant has been reported to the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) by his doctor.

4As noted in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournment, requests for adjournment are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. The Tribunal will grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances where a request comes more than 14 days after the receipt of the Notice of Hearing even if all parties consent.

5However, the Tribunal has granted adjournments where a party’s own medical condition prevents them from participating in the hearing: Butcher v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2013 HRTO 376. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction recognizes that this situation would constitute an exceptional circumstance.

6I do not think that the standard suggested by counsel for the respondents – namely that the memory loss has to be so significant as to require a report to the MTO – is appropriate. I am prepared to accept that forgetfulness could impact on a party’s ability to participate in a hearing. I am inferring from the applicant’s submissions and doctor’s note that it is hoped that this side effect is temporary.

7The applicant suggests that an adjournment of four to five months would be appropriate. However, I see no information about prognosis in the medical note and, in light of the fact that the applicant has not had the MRI or seen the specialist, such a time frame seems speculative.

8Instead, I would direct that by April 15, 2014, the applicant deliver to the Tribunal and respondents a note from his family doctor setting out whether the referrals noted above have been made, when they are to take place and any information about the impact of the concussion on the applicant’s ability to participate in a hearing and the prognosis, if known.

9The request for an adjournment of the March 11, 2014 hearing date is granted. The Registrar will contact the parties concerning a further date for the hearing upon receipt of the medical note set out above.