Arsenault v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, 2014 HRTO 455

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Arsenault

Applicant

-and-

Royal Ottawa Health Care Group

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: April 2, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 455

Indexed as: Arsenault v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christopher Arsenault, Applicant

Self-represented

Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Respondent

Michelle O’Bonsawin, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is denying the respondent’s request for an adjournment. It also provides further direction to the parties regarding their obligations to provide each other and the Tribunal with witness lists, witness statements and hearing documents in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

2A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for May 1 and 2, 2014 in Ottawa.

Request for adjournment

3On March 24, 2014 the respondent requested an adjournment on the grounds that respondent’s counsel “has just been called to attend at a Coroner’s Inquest regarding a matter relating to one of our patients. It has been scheduled to encompass a three week period commencing April 22 to May 9, 2014.” The respondent then states that “Unfortunately we have been unable to retain alternate counsel and are therefore seeking an Adjournment until after May 9th when Ms. O’Bonsawin will be available.”

4Although it is unclear from the request, I assume that counsel for the respondent is acting as counsel in the inquest mentioned above.

5The applicant neither consents to nor opposes the request.

6As is set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances.

7In this case the respondent has known that the hearing was set for May 1 and 2, 2014 since October 28, 2013. It is unclear from the respondent’s request whether this conflict in counsel’s calendar was communicated to the registry responsible for scheduling the inquest and what, if anything, was then communicated back to counsel. It is also not clear what steps, if any, counsel for the respondent took to resolve this conflict so that she could appear on behalf of the respondent on the date set for the hearing of this Application. Where a party fails to provide information of this nature, I cannot conclude that there are exceptional circumstances that would justify granting the adjournment request.

8In any event, if counsel’s attendance at the inquest is a greater priority for the respondent, it still has ample time to retain and instruct another counsel to represent it before the Tribunal on May 1 and 2. For these reasons the respondent’s request is denied.

disclosure of witness lists, witness statements and documents

9On March 24, 2014 the Tribunal sent a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to the parties setting out what they needed to do to prepare for the hearing.

10It appears that the applicant, who is unrepresented, has not understood what the CAD requires because when he sent the Tribunal his position on whether the adjournment request should be granted, he added the following:

I will be bringing copies of emails that i had received from Joan Garrow, dated after the 28th of February, which is when it was stated we last spoke of the matter.

Also Lisa Cherry will attend as a witness, should it be required. As Lisa brought to Joan's attention that the policy was not being followed as stated by the facility.

Any further information that I am required to testify has been outlined in the original papers filed with the HRTO.

11The applicant needs to understand that it is not sufficient for him to bring documents to the hearing. He needs to provide copies of all of the documents he intends to rely on to the respondent and the Tribunal in advance of the hearing and in accordance with the deadlines set by the Tribunal. The reason for this is that the respondent and the Tribunal need to be able to read hearing documents in advance of the hearing itself. If he does not comply with this direction then the Tribunal may not consider those documents even if he brings them to the hearing.

12He has also indicated that Lisa Cherry will attend as a witness “if required”. The applicant needs to understand that it is up to him and nobody else to decide who will testify in support of his case. He has to decide if she is to give evidence or not. If he wants her to give evidence, then he needs to prepare a detailed statement of what her evidence will be and provide a copy to the respondent and the Tribunal in advance of the hearing and in accordance with the deadlines set by the Tribunal. The reason for this is that the respondent and the Tribunal need to be able to read her witness statement in advance of the hearing itself. If he does not do this then the Tribunal may decide that it will not permit Lisa Cherry to give evidence even if she shows up at the hearing.

13Finally, I assume from the last statement in his email that the applicant intends to give evidence and that his evidence will set out what has already been stated in his Application.

14To date the respondent has also not provided the applicant and the Tribunal with its witness lists, witness statements and hearing documents.

15The attention of the parties is directed to the new deadlines set out below.

order

16The respondent’s request for an adjournment is denied. The hearing will proceed on May 1 and 2, 2014.

17The applicant is to provide the respondent and the Tribunal with any documents he intends to rely on at the hearing, as well as a witness statement for Lisa Cherry if he intends to call her as a witness. He must do so by April 7, 2014. If he does not do so then the Tribunal may decide that he has abandoned his Application.

18The respondent is to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with its witness lists, witness statements and hearing documents by April 7, 2014. If it fails to do so then the Tribunal may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, including not permitting the respondent to call any witnesses or present any documentary evidence at the hearing.