Ryan Rooks v. Park 'N Fly, 2016 HRTO 1604

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ryan Rooks

Applicant

-and-

Park 'N Fly

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana

Date: December 13, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1604

Indexed as: Rooks v Park ‘N Fly

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ryan Rooks, Applicant

Self-represented

Park ‘N Fly, Respondent

Mark Geiger, Counsel

1This matter is scheduled for a hearing in Toronto on January 16 and 17, 2017.

2This Interim Decision determines the applicant’s requests to adjourn the hearing and for disclosure of documents.

Adjournment

3The Registrar sent the parties a Notice of Hearing on September 2, 2016. On November 23, 2016 the applicant requested that the Tribunal adjourn the hearing for one to two months and extend the deadlines for submission of hearing documents and witness statements as he was trying to secure legal representation.

4I denied the adjournment request in Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 1510 and extended the deadlines for submission of hearing documents and witness statements.

5The next day, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“adjournment request”) seeking an adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that he would not be able to adequately represent himself at a hearing due to his disabilities. He advised that he was requesting accommodation to delay the hearing until he can find legal representation.

6I issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD), directing the applicant to provide additional information so that I could properly consider his adjournment request. Specifically, I directed the applicant to provide a medical report from his doctor clearly explaining the following:

a. How the applicant’s medical condition, including any symptoms, side-effects or reactions, would affect his ability to participate in a hearing before the Tribunal on January 16 and 17, 2017;

b. Why an adjournment is necessary to accommodate the applicant’s disability in the event that he is unable to secure legal representation;

c. What appropriate accommodation measures might enable the applicant to participate in a hearing on January 16 and 17, 2017 in the event he does not have a legal representative, such as taking breaks when needed.

7The applicant provided a note from his family physician confirming that he still suffers from “tremendous anxiety and stress” due to various factors, including sequelae of a previous diagnosis and persistent symptoms. She notes that the applicant is still seeing a specialist and that the applicant feels he would be “unable to attend and stand at such an important hearing”. The applicant advises that he spoke about accommodation measures with his doctor and that he does not feel frequent breaks would help at a hearing and that they may intensify his anxiety.

8The respondent takes no position on the adjournment request.

9In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s adjournment request. The applicant’s physician has provided some verification of the extent of the applicant’s health concerns. The Tribunal also has an interest in ensuring that if hearing dates are set, parties are able to effectively and fairly participate in proceedings.

10The adjournment is not indefinite, however, and the matter will proceed to a hearing. I must also take into account the interests of both parties in a just, fair and expeditious proceeding. The information provided by the applicant does not include specifics as to when his health issues may permit him to participate in the hearing and his physician did not address all of the issues listed at paragraph [6] above and as directed in my CAD.

11In the applicant’s first request he sought a one or two month adjournment of the hearing. The applicant has since advised that he is scheduled for additional testing at the end of January 2017 and that he will see a specialist thereafter. He is required to inform the respondent and the Tribunal as to the status of his medical issues at the latest by February 17, 2017, including a specific estimate as to when he could reasonably be expected to participate in a hearing before the Tribunal. He must also provide the date, if any, of his latest specialist appointment and any additional medical information regarding his health conditions.

12Upon review of this information the Tribunal may schedule a case management conference call with the parties to address the applicant’s ability to participate in the hearing, possible accommodation measures and to set hearing dates.

13Once the hearing dates are set, a new Notice of hearing will be sent by the Registrar including the parties’ revised deadlines for delivery and filing of hearing documents and witness statements.

Legal representation

14The applicant advises that he has been in contact with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre which has not yet confirmed whether it will represent him at a future hearing date. The applicant also advises that if the Centre does not agree to represent him, he will require an “extended period of time” in order to find legal representation. He refers to financial considerations and the fact that he has not yet been able to secure employment as a result of his health issues.

15I acknowledge the efforts undertaken by the applicant to find counsel. However as already set out in the last Interim Decision denying the applicant’s first adjournment request, the Tribunal has repeatedly held that not having counsel, or retaining counsel who is not available after the hearing date is set, are not reasons for having a hearing adjourned. See Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660. In the event that the applicant does secure legal representation, he must ensure his legal representative is available on any rescheduled dates. Absent exceptional circumstances, a party must find counsel who is available on the date already scheduled.

The applicant’s Request for Production

16The applicant also filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order for production by the respondent of a number of documents. In light of my decision to adjourn the hearing, the applicant’s request for production is premature. The applicant may renew his request once the parties have completed their disclosure per the amended deadlines that will be set out in the revised Notice of hearing. I also note that the respondent previously confirmed delivery of all arguably relevant documents to the applicant’s former legal counsel. If the applicant is aware of specific documents that he believes are missing from the respondent’s production, he must particularise these and provide details or identify the alleged missing materials to the Tribunal and to the respondent together with any future request.

ORDER

17The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is granted and the hearing dates scheduled for January 16 and 17, 2017 are cancelled;

b. By February 17, 2017, the applicant must provide updated information to the respondent and the Tribunal as set out in paragraph [11] above;

c. The applicant’s request for disclosure is denied at this time.