Karen Creary v. Melissa Bajaj and Sundip Bajaj, 2015 HRTO 452

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Creary

Applicant

-and-

Melissa Bajaj and Sundip Bajaj

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: April 7, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 452 Indexed as: Creary v. Bajaj

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to call her physicians’ evidence by teleconference. The parties addressed this issue briefly in oral submissions on a case conference call, although at that point, the applicant had not made the request. Subsequent to the call, she filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) seeking to adjourn upcoming hearing dates and seeking permission to call this evidence via teleconference.

2In her Request, the applicant noted that both her doctors are in Burlington, and that she cannot afford to have them attend in person at the hearing, which will be held in London, Ontario. The respondents filed a Response to the Request for an Order, in which they object to the evidence being called in this manner.

3Specifically, the respondents object on the basis that they need the doctors to attend in person in order to “fully respond and question” them. During the conference call, Mr. Bajaj also noted that he had some doubts about the applicant’s family doctor’s credentials, in light of some of the wording errors in her report, and wanted to be able to see her in person in order to question her. In response to that assertion, the applicant noted that her family doctor is a licensed physician.

4The Tribunal is guided by the principle that its proceedings should be fair, just and expeditious. Putting unnecessary roadblocks in the way of unrepresented parties or needlessly inconveniencing witnesses runs contrary to this guiding principle. If these witnesses are required to attend in person, they will be required to shut down their practice for at minimum a half day given the transportation time to and from London.

5Sometimes it is necessary to inconvenience witnesses to enable the parties to properly call and challenge testimonial evidence. I am not convinced that this is the case with respect to this Application. There is no suggestion that there is a concern about these witnesses somehow being improperly coached when they testify outside the visual scrutiny of the Tribunal. Likewise, the kind of visual cues that might signal a witness’s demeanour (going to his or her credibility) are less meaningful with respect to this type of evidence. The respondents will be able to cross-examine the family doctor about the errors they have identified over the phone. Finally, if the respondents are concerned about either doctor’s qualifications, they can make the necessary inquiries (and disclose the relevant documents) in advance of the hearing.

6The applicant will be permitted to call this evidence by teleconference. She should inquire what time and days these two witnesses will be available to ensure that she can call this evidence on the hearing date. At this point, a hearing date has not been scheduled. The applicant should ensure she has this information available when she is contacted by the Tribunal concerning scheduling this hearing.