Martha Fiallos v. PWD-Division of InStore Focus Inc., 2015 HRTO 947

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Martha Fiallos

Applicant

-and-

PWD-Division of InStore Focus Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 17, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 947

Indexed as: Fiallos v. PWD-Division of InStore Focus Inc.

1In a Case Assessment Direction issued on May 27, 2015 the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing to determine whether this Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that:

a. It appears that some of the allegations may be untimely.

b. there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

2The applicant has requested the adjournment of the summary hearing currently scheduled to take place on August 19, 2015 by telephone. The applicant argues that she needs further time to gather medical evidence to support her case.

3The adjournment request is denied. I agree with respondent that the applicant would have known what the evidence would be in support of her claim when she filed the Application. Moreover there is no need for evidence at the summary hearing stage. As the Tribunal indicated to the parties in the Case Assessment Direction above a summary hearing is not like a merits hearing in many important ways. One of the most important differences is that the parties are not expected to submit documents or call witnesses to testify for the purpose of a summary hearing.

4The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine if there is evidence available to support the applicant’s belief that the disadvantageous treatment he/she experienced arises from discrimination. However, the applicant should be prepared to explain to the Tribunal what the proposed evidence will be if the Application is allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits. So in this case to the extent that medical evidence is relevant to any of the issues in dispute it will be enough at this stage for the applicant to explain what medical information she had at the time of the events described in the Application and what medical information she gave to the respondent. There should be no need for the applicant to gather medical evidence well after the fact.

5This Interim Decision does not effect the ability of the adjudicator assigned to the hearing from making any Order he or she considers appropriate at the time to ensure the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of this Application.

6I am not seized.