A.B. v. Timbercreek Asset Management, 2015 HRTO 1514

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.B. Applicant

-and-

Timbercreek Asset Management Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: November 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1514 Indexed as: A.B. v. Timbercreek Asset Management

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

A.B., Applicant Self-represented

Timbercreek Asset Management, Respondent K. Ley, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that her Application be placed in abeyance.

2Following the Tribunal’s Interim Decision in A.B. v. Timbercreek Asset Management 2013 HRTO 1754, which, among other things, directed that a hearing be scheduled, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which she requested that the matter be placed in abeyance pending the resolution of another legal matter which predates this Application. She also requested production of documents from the respondent.

3The applicant submits that she is unable to deal with two legal matters at the same time, due to her medical conditions. She enclosed a letter from her doctor, dated January 21, 2014, in support of her request. She also seeks production of a “paper copy” of the respondent’s documents as she states that her copies were “contaminated from the concrete dust during the balcony renovations undertaken by the Respondent”.

4The respondent submits that an indefinite abeyance is unfair to the respondent. It submits that the applicant in this matter has consistently delayed these proceedings and that it has a right to have the matter heard in a timely manner. With respect to the production of paper copies, it states that it is willing to provide a CD copy of documents to the applicant and notes that once a hearing is scheduled, disclosure requirements will apply. It submits that if the applicant requests that paper copies be provided in disclosure, it will provide them in that fashion if the applicant provides an address for delivery. Further, it notes that the documents upon which it intends to rely are expected to include most of the documentation filed to date in this matter.

5It has come to the attention of the Registrar that since filing her RFOP, the applicant has initiated and participated in further legal matters. In such circumstances, and where the applicant has enjoyed a de facto deferral of over one year, it is appropriate that this matter be scheduled for hearing.

6The applicant’s request for a paper copy of documents is in essence a repetition of her request for documents, which was denied in the above-noted Interim Decision. No reasons have been advanced which would disturb that finding and especially in light of the respondent’s offer to send her a CD copy of all documents and the fact that paper copies will be provided to her at the Disclosure stage of this matter should she provide the respondent with a mailing address for herself, her request for a paper copy of documents is denied, in accordance with the above-noted Interim Decision.

Order

7The Registrar will schedule hearing dates in this matter.

8The applicant’s request for documents is denied.

9I am not seized.