Paul Carrigan v. Snap Services (1987) Ltd., 2015 HRTO 587

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Carrigan

Applicant

-and-

Snap Services (1987) Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: May 7, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 587

Indexed as: Carrigan v. Snap Services (1987) Ltd.

1This is an Application under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, in which the applicant alleges, among other things, that the respondent discriminated against him because of disability by terminating his employment following a workplace injury.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s May 4, 2015 request that the May 11 and 12, 2015 hearing dates in this matter be adjourned.

3Pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, and as set out in the Notice of Hearing, the parties were required to provide one another copies of their arguably relevant documents by December 31, 2014. They were also required to provide one another copies of the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing (which would ordinarily be a subset of their arguably relevant documents) and witness statements by no later than March 27, 2015.

4The respondent was diligent in complying with its pre-hearing disclosure obligations. However, the applicant failed to comply with either his December 2014 or March 2015 disclosure deadlines. The applicant finally provided the respondent with approximately 30 pages of documents that he intends to rely upon at the hearing, including a number of medical documents, on or about April 20, 2015. This was after the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing the applicant to file his materials and confirm his intention to proceed with his Application by no later than April 20, 2015, failing which the Application might be dismissed as abandoned.

5The respondent requests that the May 11 and 12 hearing dates be adjourned based on the late disclosure of the applicant’s materials. The respondent, who is self-represented, submits that he requires more time to study and prepare an adequate defense in light of the new materials that have been provided.

6The applicant opposes the adjournment on the basis that he and his witness (his son) have already booked the hearing dates off work. The applicant also suggests that “he had until April 20th to submit paperwork”, and that he did this.

7On this latter point, I wish to clarify that the applicant had until April 20, 2015 to provide the required materials and confirm his intention to proceed with the case, failing which the Application could have been dismissed as abandoned. However, the applicant did not “have until April 20th” to submit his arguably relevant documents and/or the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing. As noted above, these were to have been produced in December 2014 and March 2015. There is actually an outstanding issue in this case as to whether the applicant ought to be permitted to introduce his late documents into evidence (see the Tribunal’s April 28, 2015 Interim Decision in this matter, 2015 HRTO 541). However, now that the case is being adjourned in order to give the respondent time to review the documents and prepare for the hearing (see below), this may no longer be an issue.

8I am satisfied that the May 2015 hearing dates should be adjourned. Three weeks before the hearing, the applicant produced, for the first time, what appears to be fairly extensive documentation relevant to the merits of the case, including medical documentation. In the circumstances, I think that the self-represented respondent’s request for additional time to review the applicant’s documents and to prepare to meet the applicant’s case is not unreasonable.

9If this were a case where the applicant’s case in chief was likely to consume the two scheduled hearing days in any event, I might direct the hearing to proceed, mindful of the fact that the respondent would not be called upon to present its case or cross-examine witnesses. However, I anticipate that the applicant’s evidence in this case will be brief. If the hearing were not adjourned, I fully expect that the respondent would be required to cross-examine the applicant on the first day of hearing. I do not think it would be fair to force the self-represented respondent on in the circumstances.

10The May 11 and 12, 2015 hearing dates are adjourned. The Registrar will schedule two alternate dates in consultation with the parties.