Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Aron Kadis Applicant
-and-
Ryerson University Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: September 20, 2015 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1237 Indexed as: Kadis v. Ryerson University
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Aron Kadis, Applicant Self-represented
Ryerson University, Respondent Dolores Barbini, Counsel
1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for October 3 and 4, 2017 in Toronto.
2The applicant has filed a request to adjourn the hearing indefinitely for medical reasons. The respondent opposes the request and asks the Application be dismissed.
3In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on September 5, 2017 the applicant was alerted to the to the fact that he had failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of witnesses. Directions were made in that regard.
4The applicant responded to the CAD with this request. He provided a medical note with the request. The note from the applicant’s family physician states that due to multiple medical reasons the applicant needs to put this case on hold due to a worsening of his condition. The note indicates that the applicant has three different surgeries planned in the near future and will be assessed by a comprehensive pain specialist on September 26, 2017.
5The respondent argues that the medical information is insufficient to justify the indefinite adjournment of this case. The respondent also requests that the Application be dismissed because the applicant has failed to comply with his disclosure obligations.
6The adjournment request is granted on terms set out below.
7While not unsympathetic to the respondent’s view of the request I am not persuaded that the Application must be dismissed at this stage. I am also reluctant to force the applicant to a hearing he may not have had a fair opportunity to prepare for by amongst other things filing his hearing documents. I appreciate as well that the applicant has been entirely remiss in this regard to this point. However, while the medical information is not a complete answer to the respondent’s objection it does raise a serious issue of the applicant’s ability to proceed at this time. For these reasons the request is granted.
8However I agree with the respondent that this case should not be adjourned indefinitely. The applicant is consulting with a pain specialist on September 26, 2017. His circumstances may become clearer at that point. Accordingly the Tribunal makes the following Orders and Directions:
a. The hearing dates of October 3 and 4 are cancelled and the hearing adjourned to a date or dates to be scheduled as set out below;
b. By October 26, 2017 the applicant will deliver and file medical documents indicating his availability for a hearing before March or April 2018, or if the applicant is unable to participate in a hearing in that time frame, detailed medical information explaining why he would be unable to participate in a hearing and explaining when he will be available for the hearing. Failing to provide this information may result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned.
c. Upon receipt of the information described above the Tribunal may make further Directions with respect to next steps in this case.
Dated at Toronto this 19th day of September 2017.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
David Muir Vice-chair