Royeton v. Toronto District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1021

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robin Royeton

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board,

Sir Robert L. Borden Business & Technical Institute,

Andrea Alimi and Anthony Hack

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: August 3, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1021

Indexed as: Royeton v. Toronto District School Board

INTRODUCTION

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request seeking an indefinite adjournment of the hearing until such time as her health condition improves. The respondents oppose this request.

decision and analysis

2It would appear from the applicant’s submissions and attached medical reports that she takes the position that she is unable to participate in a conventional adversarial process in which she is required to give verbal evidence and undergo cross-examination. The applicant’s doctors suggest that the process take place in writing.

3What is not clear from these medical reports is whether there is a possibility that, at some time in the foreseeable future, the applicant will be sufficiently recovered to participate in such a hearing, and if so, what, if any modifications will be necessary to allow her to participate.

4The respondents understandably are not agreeable to a written hearing. They submit that the applicant’s version of events is not accepted and they should be afforded the opportunity to test her evidence through cross-examination.

5At this stage, although the applicant’s doctors are recommending a written hearing, the applicant’s representative has asked simply for an indefinite adjournment. The respondents take the position that there has already been delay and that it would run contrary to the principles set out in Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, to require the respondents to endure having these allegations “hanging over their head” for an indefinite period of time.

6I am not prepared to grant an indefinite adjournment of this Application. However, it would be appropriate to grant a six-month adjournment, during which time, the applicant, in consultation with her treating doctors, should address the question of whether it is anticipated that the applicant will ever be able to participate in a verbal hearing in which her evidence will be challenged by questioning from opposing counsel. I appreciate that these matters are often difficult to predict, but to the extent that this is possible, the doctors should opine on the likelihood that this level of recovery will take place. Moreover, the doctors should opine on the timeframe in which this is likely to occur.

order

7In summary, my order is as follows:

a. This matter will be adjourned for a further six months from the date of this Interim Decision;

b. At the end of that six-month period, the applicant should deliver a further medical report(s) to the respondents and Tribunal which addresses whether the applicant will ever be able to participate in a verbal hearing; what the likelihood of that occurring is; and the timeframe of when that is likely to take place; and

c. The parties may bring any Requests for an Order During Proceeding at this time.