Cronier v. Securitas Canada Ltd., 2015 HRTO 57

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leo Cronier

Applicant

-and-

Securitas Canada Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: January 15, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 57

Indexed as: Cronier v. Securitas Canada Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Leo Cronier, Applicant

Bradley Truax, Counsel

Securitas Canada Ltd., Respondent

Daniel McDonald, Counsel

1In Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 16 I denied a request by the applicant for certain accommodations he requested for his counsel at the hearing of this Application, which is scheduled to begin on January 29, 2015.

2The request was for the hearing to start after noon, rather than the usual start time of 9:30 a.m. and for his counsel to be able to use a LiveScribe pen, which has the capacity to make an audio recording of the proceedings while also enabling counsel to take notes. The request was unsupported by any documentation from a professional which linked the requested accommodations to counsel’s disability, and it was opposed by the respondent. In earlier communication with the Tribunal counsel for the applicant indicated that such documentation would be obtained if the Tribunal requested it.

3I denied the request for the reasons set out in the Interim Decision and indicated that the applicant could renew the request and support it with the documentation I refer to above.

4The applicant now seeks an adjournment of the hearing to enable counsel to obtain this documentation. Counsel for the applicant is enrolled as a student at a college in Toronto. A professional retained by the college has confirmed in writing that the above accommodations are granted by the college to counsel in an academic setting. However, the college will not agree to the professional providing a letter to the Tribunal to support the accommodation request because this has nothing to do with the business of the college and the accommodations it offers in an academic setting. As a result, the applicant seeks more time to enable his counsel to obtain a letter from another professional to justify the requested accommodations.

5The respondent takes no position on the adjournment request.

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments makes clear that the Tribunal only grants adjournments in exceptional circumstances. In my view, to give effect to the underlying intent of the Practice Direction, the appropriate approach here is for the hearing to proceed as scheduled, and to grant the accommodations as originally requested by counsel for the applicant.

7The reasons for this are set out as follows. First, the applicant correctly points out that this issue was raised in a timely manner by him, but the Tribunal did not deal with this request promptly. Second, the Tribunal now has some information about the accommodations provided to applicant’s counsel that comes from a professional. While the information is limited and pertains to an academic setting, in my view it is sufficient in the circumstances to justify granting the accommodations in an analogous situation, namely a hearing where counsel has to concentrate on following testimony and taking notes simultaneously. Third, the respondent takes a neutral position on the request. In all of these circumstances little would be gained by delaying the hearing of this Application.

8Any recording of the hearing by the applicant is to be subject to the terms of the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Recording Hearings and any conditions determined by the member who hears this Application.

order

9The request to adjourn is denied. The hearing of this Application will proceed on the date scheduled and will begin at 1:00 p.m.. Counsel for the applicant will be allowed to use a LiveScribe pen to take notes, but any recording of the hearing is to be subject to the terms of the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Recording Hearings and any conditions determined by the member who hears this Application.