Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00654118-0000 DATE: 20210804

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: AHMAD MOHAMMAD Plaintiff AND: McMASTER UNIVERSITY, and CUPE 3096 Defendants

BEFORE: Chalmers, J.

COUNSEL: A. Mohammad, self-represented G. Avraam, for McMaster University S. Cheema, for CUPE 3096

HEARD: August 3, 2021 By videoconference

Endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated May 7, 2021, I dismissed the proceeding pursuant to R. 2.1.01. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Plaintiff delivering an Amended Statement of Claim which complies with the requirements of R. 25. The Plaintiff was to deliver the Amended Statement of Claim within 20 days of the endorsement.

[2] The Plaintiff delivered a Fresh Amended Statement of Claim in response to my endorsement. By letter dated June 4, 2021, counsel for McMaster University wrote to the Registrar asking the Court to review the Fresh Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to R. 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant, CUPE 3096 also made a request that the Court carry out a R. 2.1.01 review of the Claim.

[3] By endorsement dated June 9, 2021, I directed the Registrar to provide notice to the Plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the Court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the proceedings and to advise the Plaintiff that he may, within 15 days after receiving notice, file with the court a written submission of no more than 10 pages in length responding to the notice.

[4] On July 5, 2021, the Plaintiff sent an e-mail to the court asking that he be granted accommodation in responding to the Form 2.1A notice. He states that he requires the accommodation for medical reasons.

[5] I directed the Plaintiff to attend a case conference to identify the reasons for the accommodation request and how he could be accommodated. The case conference took place on August 3, 2021 by videoconference. Counsel for the Defendants received notice of the case conference and were in attendance.

[6] In advance of the case conference, the Plaintiff delivered a letter from Dr. Stephanie Wu dated June 15, 2021. Dr. Wu notes that the Plaintiff states he has autism and that he has difficulty with writing. The doctor asks that the court accommodate his writing difficulty if at all possible. Dr. Wu does not provide a diagnosis of autism or provide an explanation for why the autism may affect his writing ability.

[7] At the case conference, the Plaintiff stated that he has difficulty in writing with respect to non-scientific matters. He believes he is unable to provide a fulsome response to the Form 2.1 notice if it is in writing. He has been unable to retain counsel or have anyone agree to assist him. He asks that he be allowed to provide his response to the notice, orally.

[8] Rule 2.1.01(3) sets out the procedure for a determination under R. 2.1. Unless the court orders otherwise, an order under R. 2.1 is to be made on the basis of written submissions. The rule specifically states that the court may “order otherwise”. The Rule provides the judge with discretion to deviate from the procedure in the appropriate circumstances.

[9] The evidence of Dr. Wu that the Plaintiff requires accommodation is deficient. She does not express an opinion that the Plaintiff has autism or that the autism affects his ability to write. Although there is very little evidence to support the Plaintiff’s position that he requires a medical accommodation, it is my view that there is no harm in allowing his request. The Defendants will not be prejudiced if the Plaintiff is allowed to provide his response orally.

[10] I order that the Plaintiff’s response to the Form 2.1A notice shall be made orally. The Plaintiff is directed to contact the motion co-ordinator to schedule a half hour hearing at 9 a.m. on a day I am available, during the weeks of August 23 or 30, 2021. At the hearing, the Plaintiff shall provide his oral response to the Form 2.1A notice. The oral response shall be no more than 15 minutes in length. There will be no cross-examination. The transcript of the submissions will be his response to the notice. The Defendants may respond to the submissions in writing within 10 days of receiving the transcript. The Defendants submissions, if any, shall be no more than 10 pages in length.

[11] I remain seized of this matter.

Date: August 4, 2021