McPherson v. De Silva, 2016 HRTO 65

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan McPherson

Applicant

-and-

Lande De Silva

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: January 15, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 65

Indexed as: McPherson v. De Silva

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Susan McPherson, Applicant

Self-represented

Lande De Silva, Respondent

Kara Smith, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of sex, marital status, family status and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant filed a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) (as well as an amended version) requesting:

a. That the respondent advise of the relevancy of the applicant’s medical documents that the respondent intends to rely on at the hearing;

b. That the respondent number the medical records and put them in chronological order;

c. That the hearing be adjourned;

d. That the hearing be recorded.

3The respondent filed a Form 11 Response to the Request for an Order During Proceedings (“response”).

relevancy

4The applicant filed an earlier RFOP, dated September 9, 2015, in relation to which an Order, dated October 8, 2015, already has been issued. In part, it stated that if the applicant wished to raise the scope of the medical documents the respondent intends to use at the hearing, she can raise this before the hearing adjudicator. I note that the respondent explains in his Form 11 response his view of the relevancy of the medical documents, but as indicated if the applicant has further submissions with respect to relevancy, she can raise these at the hearing. As such, no further order is required at this time.

5The respondent has now disclosed his hearing documents, including the applicant’s medical documents, and has in fact numbered the pages. This does not require any order.

adjournment

6The applicant requests that the hearing in this matter be adjourned. The respondent opposes that request.

7The Tribunal’s Confirmation of Hearing Notice states that requests for adjournments will be dealt with according to the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. This Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and that the parties need to confer and provide the Tribunal with alternative dates if a rescheduling is being requested. The Practice Direction also states that the Tribunal discourages requests for adjournments outside this 14-day period, noting that later requests for adjournment, particularly ones at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Consequently, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent. The Practice Direction also states that where a party seeks to adjourn a scheduled hearing, they must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the hearing.

8There are no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances in this case to warrant an adjournment and the applicant’s request is denied.

recording of hearing

9The applicant requests an order that she be permitted to record the hearing. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction with respect to recording hearings is set out below:

Self-recording and Transcription

If a party wishes to record a hearing to supplement his or her notes, he or she must get the permission of the panel and provide a copy of any recording or transcription to the other parties and the HRTO (on a USB device or CD). Such recordings or transcriptions do not form part of the HRTO's record of proceedings, including the record filed in court in respect of any application for judicial review. The recording or transcription may not be publicized or used for any purpose other than in the proceeding before the Tribunal.

10The applicant may record the hearing as set out in the Practice Direction.

order

11The Tribunal makes the following orders:

a. The applicant’s request that the respondent advise of the relevancy of the medical documents at this stage of the proceedings is denied, without prejudice to her right to make further requests at the hearing;

b. The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

c. The applicant’s request to record the hearing is granted, in accordance with the terms set out in the Practice Direction set out in paragraph 9 of this Interim Decision.