Georgakopoulos v. Toronto (City), 2016 HRTO 137

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Georgakopoulos Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto and Jason Lendor Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: January 29, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 137

Indexed as: Georgakopoulos v. Toronto (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peter Georgakopoulos, Applicant Anka Georgakopoulos, Representative

City of Toronto and Jason Lendor, Respondents Brennagh Smith, Counsel

1A hearing in respect of this Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, is scheduled for next week on Monday, February 1, 2016, and the following day, in Toronto.

2The applicant’s wife emailed the Tribunal on January 27 requesting an adjournment because the applicant has had a change of medication and is no longer as “lucid as he should be” to proceed with the hearing next week. The email states that the applicant’s medical specialist is fully booked. The applicant’s wife indicates in her email, “I would have to wait until he has an opportunity to provide. [sic]”

3The respondents consent to the adjournment on the condition that the rescheduled hearing be set for the Tribunal’s “first and next available hearing dates” and that any longer adjournment would only be allowed if the applicant were to file medical evidence in support of such a delay.

4The respondents also request that the applicant be directed to respond to their January 26, 2016 Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in an expedited fashion. Given my decision to grant the applicant’s request for an adjournment, I see no need for the applicant to respond earlier than the 14 days as contemplated by the Rules.

reasons for granting the Adjournment

5As noted in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournment, the Tribunal will grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances. However, the Tribunal’s Practice Direction also recognizes that a medical condition that prevents a party from participating would constitute an exceptional circumstance. Given the alleged last minute change in the applicant’s health, and the apparent and understandable unavailability of the applicant’s treating specialist in the few remaining days before the hearing is to begin, I am granting the adjournment request without requiring that the applicant first file medical document substantiating his condition that the applicant’s wife implies renders him unfit to attend next week.

6The new dates that will be scheduled by the Tribunal will be peremptory on the applicant.

next steps and directions

7The Tribunal will reschedule the hearing for dates that are the Tribunal’s next available ones. Any request by the applicant to change those dates will have to be filed with medical documentation completed by the applicant’s medical specialist or a physician who confirms that the applicant is medically unable to proceed with the hearing on those dates. Any such medical documentation would also need to state when the applicant will be fit to proceed with the hearing.

8The applicant must respond to the RFOP within 14 days of it being delivered to him.

9The applicant must file within 21 days any medical documentation he intends to rely upon at the hearing if he intends to pursue any claim that he was unable to attend court to fight a parking ticket on a weekday other than a Friday in September to December 2014.

10If the applicant decides not to pursue his Application, then he must notify the Tribunal in writing that he is withdrawing his Application.

11The applicant is reminded that any communication with the Tribunal must be copied to the respondents’ counsel.

12The applicant is reminded that the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and “Guide to Preparing for a Hearing before the HRTO” are available at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/.