Reilly v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, 2016 HRTO 1251

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Reilly

Applicant

-and-

Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: September 26, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1251

Indexed as: Reilly v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Paul Reilly, Applicant

Self-represented

Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, Respondent

Anna Abbott, Counsel

The Great West Life Assurance Company, Respondent

Susan McCorquodale, Counsel

1The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision on September 9, 2016 (2016 HRTO 1189), both narrowing the issues in this case and explaining the possible widespread ramifications of them. To that end, it invited intervention from a number of organizations.

2The respondent has indicated that it now requires additional time to gather the expert evidence required to address the issue that the Tribunal has directed the parties to address. It seeks an adjournment of the November 3 and 4, 2016 hearing dates. Great West Life, a former respondent in this matter supports that request, advising that it is currently in the stage of consulting with and coordinating around intervention in this matter.

3The applicant opposes the request for the adjournment, but does not directly address the above submissions about the time it will take to obtain expert evidence and corordinate intervention.

4Moreover, it is not clear that the intervenors who might take a position in support of the applicant have been notified of the Tribunal’s invitation to intervene. In the earlier Interim Decision, the Tribunal noted as follows:

By the same token, I note that the applicant is self-represented in this matter. It may benefit the Tribunal in addressing the issue raised in this proceeding if the applicant were to retain legal counsel, either privately or through the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (contact information for the Centre is provided on the initial pages of the Tribunal’s Application form). In addition, the Tribunal may benefit from the involvement in this matter of other organizations that may have an interest in the issue, such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission or the Advocacy Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities (“ARCH”). Once again, any involvement by such organizations would need to be initiated by a Request to Intervene.

5Both this and the previous Interim Decision shall be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, and ARCH so that they may make a request to intervene should they wish. All Requests to Intervene should be filed by October 17, 2016.

6Given the above issues with respect to expert evidence and intervention, the respondent’s request to adjourn is granted. The previous deadlines for compliance with Rules 16.2, 16.3 and 17 set out in the previous Interim Decision are set aside. The Tribunal will convene a case management conference call on November 3, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

ORDER

7For all of the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order and directions:

a. The respondent’s request to adjourn the November 3 and 4, 2016 hearing dates is granted;

b. The Tribunal’s order that the parties shall comply with Rules 16.2, 16.3 and 17 by serving and filing the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing, a list of witnesses, a summary of each witness’ expected evidence, and any expert reports or summaries of evidence by no later than October 14, 2016 is set aside;

c. This Interim Decision, as well as the Tribunal’s previous Interim Decision, shall be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, and ARCH so that they may make a request to intervene should they wish;

d. All Requests to Intervene should be filed by October 17, 2016; and

e. The Tribunal will convene a case management call at 9:30 a.m. on November 3, 2016.