Bali v. Regional Municipality of Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 665

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: May 17, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 665

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

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mohit Bali, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal adjourn the summary hearing into his two Applications scheduled for July 11, 2016.

2The summary hearing for Application File No. 2014-19668-I was scheduled to be heard May 2, 2016. The applicant requested an adjournment of that summary hearing on the basis that he was not provided 60 days to review materials prior to the summary hearing. He claimed to have filed medical documentation supporting his contention that he requires 60 days to review materials prior to a hearing. I granted the applicant’s adjournment request despite the fact that the medical documentation he has submitted does not support his claim that he requires 60 days to review materials prior to a summary hearing.

3The Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments” and its case law makes clear that the Tribunal only grants requests for adjournments in exceptional circumstances, even where the other party consents to the adjournment request. If a party requests an adjournment or accommodations for a hearing, that party must provide medical documentation that supports his or her request.

4The medical note provided by the applicant is dated almost 9 months ago on August 21, 2015. It states that the applicant “should be provided an afternoon hearing time and an adjournment (for significant matters such as legal hearings) for at least two weeks (preferably up to two months).”

5The note does not speak to the number of days the applicant requires to review documents. It is possible that the term “adjournment” in the medical note is mistakenly used to review to the time the applicant requires to review materials prior to a hearing. Even if this is the case, I note that the note says that the applicant requires “at least two weeks” and only “preferably up to two months”.

6Therefore, I am not persuaded that the this medical note supports the applicant’s claim that, due to his disability, he requires 60 days to review materials prior to a hearing. In any event, the applicant received the respondent’s materials relating to 2014-19668-I prior to the May 2, 2016 hearing which was adjourned. Therefore, he will have ample time to review these materials prior to the July 11, 2016 hearing.

7By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated May 10, 2016, I directed that the Tribunal deal with the applicant’s second Application (File No. 2016-24209-I) in the July 11, 2016 summary hearing. The respondent has filed no materials in relation to the applicant’s second Application and I see no need for the respondent to file any further materials beyond those already filed with respect to the applicant’s first Application.

8I note that a summary hearing is focused on information provided by an applicant not a respondent. While the Tribunal may have regard to submissions made by the respondent, the focus of the summary hearing is on the information provided by the applicant. Specifically, as explained in the CADs sent to the applicant, the focus of the summary hearing is to provide the applicant with an opportunity to explain what evidence he would intend to call in a full hearing to establish a link between the respondent’s actions and the personal characteristics listed in his Application.

9Finally, I note that none of the other reasons that the applicant provided to support his request for an adjournment amount to exceptional circumstances that would justify an adjournment. In particular, the fact that the applicant is self-represented does not justify an adjournment. Most applicants appearing before the Tribunal are self-represented. Therefore, this is not a valid reason that would justify the applicant’s adjournment request. In addition, the Tribunal has repeatedly held that a party’s failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants adjournment of the hearing.

order

10For all the above reasons, the applicant’s adjournment request is denied. The July 11, 2016 summary hearing will proceed as scheduled.