Court File and Parties
CITATION: Dai v. Presbyterian Church in Canada, 2013 ONSC 6648
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 71/13
DATE: 20131023
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HIMEL, SACHS AND WARKENTIN JJ.
BETWEEN:
PEIKANG DAI
Applicant
– and –
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA
Respondent
In Person
David Stuart Elenbaas and Richard T. McCluskey, for the Respondent
Margaret Leighton, for the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: October 23, 2013
Oral Reasons for Judgment
HIMEL J. (orally)
[1] Mr. Dai wishes to introduce a psychiatric report dated October 21, 2013, which he served on the opposing parties and filed with the Court yesterday. This report is not in the proper form of evidence to be adduced before this Court. There is no affidavit attaching this report and there is no motion to adduce fresh evidence.
[2] Mr. Dai says that since he represents himself and cannot afford counsel, he was not aware of the procedure. The responding parties oppose this information being admitted at the hearing today.
[3] Mr. Dai has asked the Court for an adjournment in order to serve the notice of motion to adduce the information and prepare a proper affidavit.
[4] We are of the view that this report is not relevant to the issues before the Court and it would be prejudicial to all parties to adjourn this case which has been set for some time for today.
[5] Accordingly, the request to adjourn this case is dismissed and the request to adduce this report is refused.
HIMEL J.
SACHS J.
WARKENTIN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 23, 2013
Date of Release: October 25, 2013
CITATION: Dai v. Presbyterian Church in Canada, 2013 ONSC 6648
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 71/13
DATE: 20131023
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HIMEL, SACHS AND WARKENTIN JJ.
BETWEEN:
PEIKANG DAI
Applicant
– and –
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIMEL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 23, 2013
Date of Release: October 25, 2013