Free v. Municipality of Magnetawan, 2016 HRTO 806

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Free

Applicant

-and-

Municipality of Magnetawan and Richard Smith

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

David Free

Applicant

-and-

Municipality of Magnetawan and Jeffery Rochwerg

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: June 14, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 806

Indexed as: Free v. Municipality of Magnetawan

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Free, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s second request to adjourn the preliminary hearing scheduled for June 20, 2016.

2By Interim Decision, 2016 HRTO 715, I denied the applicant’s first request for an adjournment on the basis that he had not provided sufficient medical documentation to support his request to adjourn the preliminary hearing.

3On June 6, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“Request”) of my Interim Decision on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias and a breach of procedural fairness. I will treat his Request as a renewed request for an adjournment supported by a new letter from his treating physician.

4The Tribunal sought the respondents’ position(s) in relation to the applicant’s Request. However, none of the respondents filed submissions with the Tribunal and the time for doing so has now passed.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule hearings makes clear that the Tribunal will only grant adjourments in exceptional circumstances. It states:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

6As noted above, the applicant alleges a reasonable apprehension of bias on my part. In reviewing his submissions, it appears to me that he simply does not agree with the finding in my previous Interim Decision. It is well accepted that this is not a valid basis on which to make the very serious claim of a reasonable apprehension of bias. See, for example, Taucar v. University of Western Ontario, 2015 HRTO 125 and Keita v. Qualification Evaluation Council of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 7.

7The Tribunal’s caselaw and practice direction regarding adjournment requests is clear. Adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances. In order to be granted an adjournment due to an illness or disability, a party must provide acceptable documentation that their illness or disability renders them incapable of proceeding with a hearing before the Tribunal. See for example, Blakely v. Queen’s University, 2011 HRTO 706 and Husain v. Tortoise Restaurant Group, 2012 HRTO 1669.

8The most recent medical letter from the applicant’s physician states that his sight has deteriorated such that his ability to reference and read documents is very limited. On the basis of this new letter, I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s adjournment request as an accommodation for his disability-related restrictions.

ORDER and directions

9The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to adjourn the June 20, 2016 preliminary hearing is granted.

b. The Registrar will reschedule the preliminary hearing and advise the parties of the new date for the preliminary hearing by Notice of Rescheduled Preliminary Hearing. If any of the parties need to request a rescheduling of the new hearing date, they must follow the instructions for rescheduling the preliminary hearing contained in the Notice of Preliminary Hearing that will be sent to them.

c. In light of the above, the deadline for the filing of materials on which the parties intend to rely in the preliminary hearing is set aside. The parties must file any materials on which they intend to rely in the rescheduled preliminary hearing at least 21 days before the date of the rescheduled Preliminary Hearing.

10I am not seized of these Applications.