Deschenes v. White Spruce Apartments, 2017 HRTO 1508

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anne Deschenes

Applicant

-and-

White Spruce Apartments and Girts Sipolins

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe
Date: November 17, 2017
Citation: 2017 HRTO 1508
Indexed as: Deschenes v. White Spruce Apartments

1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application filed under s.45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondents breached terms agreed to in Minutes of Settlement (“Minutes”) signed by the parties on July 16, 2015, in settlement of a previous Application.

2This matter is scheduled for a hearing in Ottawa on December 14, 2017.

BACKGROUND

3The applicant filed her Application on February 3, 2016. Since that time, the Tribunal has issued a number of Interim Decisions and Case Assessment Directions (“CADs”). Many of these pertain to the applicant’s requests to either adjourn the hearing, or for extensions of time to file documents. Many of the CADs provide directions regarding the type of medical evidence the Tribunal requires when considering accommodation requests.

4For example, in Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 734, issued on May 30, 2016, the Tribunal refused a further extension of time to file submissions because it was not satisfied that the applicant had a medical reason to substantiate her asserted inability to file submissions. In that Interim Decision, the Tribunal noted that it had granted the applicant multiple extensions of time to file her submissions.

5In a CAD issued on July 6, 2017, the Tribunal explained the type of medical evidence the applicant must submit when making an accommodation request at the Tribunal.

6In a CAD issued on September 29, 2017, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to substantiate her request to extend the time to file hearing documents, and witness statements, as such the request was denied.

7On September 29, 2017 the applicant once again sought an extension to file hearing documents, and witness statements as she developed new ailments/disabilities, and because she requires time to locate counsel. In a CAD issued on October 3, 2017 the Tribunal denied the request due to the lack of supporting information contained within in it.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUESTS

8On October 31, 2017 the applicant once again wrote to the Tribunal and asked for an extension of time to file her hearing documents and witness statements, sought to adjourn the hearing for two months, and asked that the hearing be completed in one day. She provided 3 medical notes in support of her request. Specifically, the notes lack particulars, they do not provide a reason for the request, or state that the applicant can attend a hearing in two months. Lastly, the notes do not provide a definitive date when the applicant can attend a hearing.

9The applicant submitted hearing documents and witness statements on November 2, 2017.

10On November 6, 2017 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and asked that she be permitted to send in additional documentation.

11Finally, on November 9, 2017 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to request an extension to January 10, 2018 to file further evidence in support of her case. In addition, she requested that the Tribunal adjourn the hearing scheduled on December 14, 2017 until January, 2018. The applicant resubmitted medical documents that she already submitted to the Tribunal.

12The respondents object to the applicant’s requests on the basis that she has not provided sufficient medical information to support them and due to the substantial delays caused by this proceeding.

findings

13The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support her request to extend time to file documents, adjourn the hearing, or complete the hearing in only one day. The applicant has not provided medical documentation that states why she is unable to attend the hearing, how she could be accommodated, and when she will be able to attend a hearing.

14The Tribunal’s case law establishes that applicants must provide evidence to establish that they are medically incapable of proceeding with their hearing, see Blakely v. Queen’s University, 2011 HRTO 706 and Free v. Magnetawan (Municipality), 2016 HRTO 715.

15The applicant has not provided medical information that supports her claim that she requires further time to file her documents due to disability. The applicant has not provided any evidence-based rationale for her one day hearing request. To that end, her medical notes do not indicate that there is any medical reason for this request. In any event, the length of the hearing is typically a function of the amount and scope of evidence that each party presents. It would be premature to predetermine that this case should not continue past one day, as an additional hearing day be required to complete the case. Lastly, the applicant has persistently made similar requests that have led to delays in the proceeding. Given these considerations, it would not be fair, just or expeditious in the circumstances to permit any further delays in this case.

order

16The applicant’s request to extend the time to file hearing documents is denied. The deadline for the parties to file documents has now passed. The applicant has been provided ample opportunities to file her documents. The hearing will proceed based on the materials filed by the parties up to the date of this Interim Decision.

17The applicant’s requests to adjourn the hearing and have it conclude in only one day are denied. Therefore, the hearing will proceed on December 14, 2017.