MacDonald v. Marvel Beauty Schools - London Campus, 2015 HRTO 655

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tawnya-Rose MacDonald

Applicant

-and-

Marvel Beauty Schools - London Campus

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 19, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 655

Indexed as: MacDonald v. Marvel Beauty Schools - London Campus

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tawnya-Rose MacDonald, Applicant

D. Beth Walden, Counsel

Marvel Beauty Schools - London Campus, Respondent

Stephen A. Bernofsky, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses a Request by the applicant made May 8, 2015 to adjourn the hearing scheduled for May 25 and 26, 2015. The respondent opposes the Request to adjourn.

2The Application alleges discrimination on the basis of disability in the social area of services. The applicant alleges that she has a serious allergy to shellfish which was diagnosed over 13 years at a medical facility in London. She does not remember where.

3It is alleged that the applicant was exposed to fish on several occasions while attending at the Respondent school and that she experienced allergic reactions as a result. Allegedly the fish was brought to the school by other students.

4The allergy was not diagnosed by the applicant’s current family doctor, although he did allegedly prescribe the applicant with an EpiPen based on description of her symptoms.

5Counsel for the applicant was retained by the applicant in early February, 2015. Prior to this point the applicant was unrepresented.

6Counsel has attempted to obtain medical records from three different hospitals in London as the applicant was not certain where testing in 2012 took place. The medical records obtained by counsel were either not relevant or contained no records relating to allergy testing.

7In early February, 2015, the applicant’s family doctor referred the applicant to an allergy specialist. The applicant has confirmed that her appointment with the specialist is scheduled for June 11, 2015.

8It is evident that that the question of whether the applicant is allergic to shellfish/fish will be a primary issue at the hearing. On several occasions, the respondent has expressed its concern about not having received medical documentation relating to the applicant’s alleged allergy. Indeed, by letter dated May 1, 2015, the respondent asked that the Application be dismissed or adjourned pending the completion of the June 2015 allergy tests, although the adjournment request was subsequently withdrawn.

9The application turns on the nature of the applicant’s allergy, if any. The question as to the applicant’s allergy will most likely be resolved after the applicant’s allergy tests. This will most certainly benefit the parties and the Tribunal as it will narrow the issues before the Tribunal.

10In my view, an adjournment will not prejudice the respondent. It will serve to expedite this matter by resolving a key question at issue in the hearing.

11The combination of circumstances in this particular case satisfies me that the request for an adjournment is justified. The hearing scheduled for May 25 and 26, 2015 is adjourned peremptory on the applicant. The parties are directed to communicate with each other, and advise the Registrar by no later than May 26, 2015 as to their available dates for a rescheduled hearing. If no communication is received from the parties, the Tribunal may set the hearing dates without further consultation with the parties.