Mohit Bali v. Regional Municipality of Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 1697

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohit Bali

Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Peel Regional Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 30, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1697

Indexed as: Bali v. Regional Municipality of Peel Regional Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mohit Bali, Applicant

Self-represented

Regional Municipality of Peel Regional Police Services Board, Respondent

Lynda Bordeleau, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal continue to hold his Application in abeyance for a further six months.

2In Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 720, I granted the applicant’s request to adjourn a summary hearing that the Tribunal had scheduled in relation to these two Applications. I also granted his request that the Tribunal place his Application in abeyance for six months due to his medical condition. Specifically, the applicant had filed a medical note from his doctor stating that he has aggravated medical symptoms that make it difficult for him to deal with significant and stressful matters.

3In or around November 2016, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and filed a request to continue the abeyance for another six months. He enclosed another letter from his doctor which repeated the same text from his previous letter and recommended that the Tribunal put the Applications in abeyance for a further six months.

4By Case Assessment Direction, I directed the applicant to provide more specific information about his alleged inability to participate in a summary hearing. On December 20, 2016, the applicant filed a note from his doctor providing some additional information about the applicant’s medical condition.

Finding

5Based on the above, I grant the applicant’s request that the Tribunal keep his Applications in abeyance for a further six months. However, the applicant should take note that if he requests a further extension of the abeyance period, the Tribunal may require his doctor to provide evidence in person or by telephone to justify any requested extension of the abeyance period. Alternatively, the Tribunal may seek submissions from the parties as to whether the summary hearing should proceed based on the reasoning in Gonzalez v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2010 HRTO 523, and King v. Toronto Public Library Board, 2013 HRTO 931.

order

6For the reasons set out above, The Applications will be kept in abeyance until May 21, 2017. On that date, if the Tribunal has not received a request to extend the period of abeyance, the Application will be placed back in the Tribunal’s hearing scheduling queue. If the applicant wishes to request an extension of the abeyance period, he should take note of the comments made in para. 5 above as to how such a request may be treated.