Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc., 2008 HRTO 203

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Complainant

-and-

571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, 1528433 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Cadillac Tavern,

Vladimir (a.k.a. Walter) Perin Sr., and Walter Perin Jr.

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Martha Glover

Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, 1528433 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Cadillac Tavern,

Vladimir (a.k.a. Walter) Perin Sr., and Walter Perin Jr.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ian Anderson

Date: October 28, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 203

Indexed as: Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc.

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th Floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone 416-314-8419 Fax 416- 314-8743 Toll Free 1-866-598-0322

TTY 416-314-2379 Toll Free1-800-424-1168

E-mail hrto.registrar-transition@ontario.ca

Website www.hrto.ca

APPEARANCES:

Martha Glover, complainant ) Geri Sanson, ) Counsel

571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, ) 1528433 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Cadillac ) Michelle Packer, Tavern, Vladimir (aka Walter) Perin Sr. ) Counsel and Walter Perin Jr., respondents )

Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Prahbu Rajan, ) Counsel

Ontario Human Rights Commission and ) Kim Twohig, Hart Schwartz, potential respondents ) Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1Tribunal file number HR-1207-06 is a complaint initiated pursuant to section 32(2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, now amended, (the “Code”) by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission’s complaint”) alleging breaches of sections 9 and 43 of the Code. It seeks certain orders in relation to the settlement of a human rights complaint by Martha Glover against 571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, Mr. Vladimir (aka Walter) Perin Sr. and Mr. Walter Perin Jr. (the “original complaint” and the “settlement” or “settlement of the original complaint”). It names the Commission as complainant and 571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, 1528433 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Cadillac Tavern, Mr. Vladimir (aka Walter) Perin Sr. and Mr. Walter Perin Jr. as responding parties (collectively, the “respondents”). It was referred to the Tribunal by the Commission on December 1, 2006.

2Tribunal file number HR-1331-07 is a complaint initiated by Ms. Glover (“Ms. Glover’s complaint”). It also seeks certain orders in relation to the settlement of the original complaint. In her complaint to the Commission, Ms. Glover named the Commission itself and Mr. Schwartz, then the Commission’s Legal Director, as respondents, in addition to the respondents to the Commission’s complaint. Ms. Glover’s complaint sought remedies against the Commission and Mr. Schwartz and certain additional remedies against the respondents, in particular that the allegations in her original complaint be heard and determined as a consequence of the respondents’ breach of the settlement of the original complaint. It alleged breaches of sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 29(i) and 43 of the Code as in effect at that time. On August 21, 2007 the Commission referred part of Ms. Glover’s complaint to the Tribunal. The Commission decided not to refer complaints against the Commission and Mr. Schwartz or the allegations based on sections 5, 7, 8 and 9. That is, the Commission decided not to refer Ms. Glover’s request that the allegations in her original complaint be heard and determined as a consequence of the respondents’ breach of the settlement of the original complaint.

3All interested parties agreed that the two complaints be consolidated.

4These files were originally assigned to the Chair of the Tribunal. On December 21, 2007 Ms. Glover alleged bias on the part of the part of the Chair and requested an order that he recuse himself. On January 17, 2008 the Chair determined that the files would be reassigned, and the files were subsequently assigned to me. The parties and the potential responding parties differ on the effect to be given to the decisions made by the Chair in these files prior to their reassignment (the “prior decisions”).

5By decision dated May 29, 2008 (2008 HRTO 32), I directed a hearing be held on whether the prior decisions had the effect of precluding Ms. Glover from further advancing the following issues (the lettering corresponds to the lettering used in the May 29, 2008 decision):

d) Admissibility of evidence of Eddie Taylor;

e) Request for production to Ms. Glover by the Commission;

g) Ms. Glover’s allegation of abuse of process by the Commission and Mr. Schwartz;

h) Ms. Glover’s request that the Commission and Mr. Schwartz be added as party respondents; and

i) Ms. Glover’s request that the allegations in her original complaint be heard and determined in these proceedings as a consequence of the respondents’ breach of the settlement of the original complaint.

6A hearing was held on June 19, 2008 to hear submissions on whether the prior decisions were “final” decisions and, if the prior decisions were “final”, whether and in what circumstances they might be reconsidered. For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the decisions were not “final” Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider the extensive arguments made with respect to the second issue.

7There were a number of prior decisions in relation to these matters, and also decisions made by the Chair with respect to the original complaint. Some of those decisions are purely procedural (e.g. extending the time for the filing of submissions) or derivative from other decisions. The submissions of the parties focused on the decisions dated May 16, 2006 (2006 HRTO 14), June 19, 2006 (2006 HRTO 16), January 22, 2007 (2007 HRTO 3) and December 11, 2007 (2008 HRTO 3).

The May 16, 2006 and June 19, 2006 Decisions

8The May 16 and June 19, 2006 decisions were made in the original complaint. The respondents argue that these decisions finally determine that Ms. Glover may not re-raise the original allegations made in that complaint.

9The May 16, 2006 decision states on March 1, 2006 the parties (other than 1528433 Ontario Limited) entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving the original complaint. By letter dated March 29, 2006 to the Tribunal, counsel for Ms. Glover advised that the respondents had not complied with the terms of the settlement and asked that the matter be brought back on for a hearing. Through clerical error, on or about March 31, 2006, the Commission sent the Tribunal a Form 3 (Confirmation of Full Settlement) and a Form 4 (draft Order disposing of the complaint). The Order was signed by the Tribunal on March 31, 2006.

10The Commission and Ms. Glover requested that the Tribunal rescind the Order. The Commission sought an order adding 1528433 Ontario Limited as a respondent, asserting that it was a successor to 571566 Ontario Inc. Ms. Glover argued that the respondents’ actions demonstrated a lack of good faith in entering the settlement and further that the respondents had breached a fundamental term of the settlement (by failing to make timely payment of monies provided for under the settlement). Accordingly, Ms. Glover submitted that there was no valid resolution of the original complaint and sought a hearing on the merits.

11The May 16, 2006 decision rescinded the March 31, 2006 Order. The Tribunal stated in part:

I am satisfied, based on the representations made by the Complainant and the Commission, that the Complainant’s consent to having the Tribunal formally dispose of the Complaint without a hearing was contingent upon the full payment of the monies owing under the Settlement. I am also satisfied that the delivery of the completed Form 3 was an administrative and clerical error of the Commission.

12The Tribunal then turned to the other remedial requests advanced by Ms. Glover and the Commission and stated:

27However, the question as to whether there is a valid Settlement, binding upon all of the parties is another matter. It is undisputed that the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement on March 1, 2006 in Windsor. It is also undisputed that the Settlement was approved by the Commission on or about March 17, 2006. Neither the Commission nor the Complainant asserted that the Settlement contained a specific term which provided that a failure to pay monies by a particular date would render the Settlement null and void.

28Section 43 of the Code reads as follows:

Where a settlement of a complaint is agreed to in writing, signed by the parties and approved by the Commission, the settlement is binding upon the parties, and a breach of the settlement is grounds for a complaint under section 32, and this Part applies to the complaint in the same manner as if the breach of the settlement were an infringement of a right under this Act.

29Counsel for the Complainant took the position that Section 43 does not apply to a settlement which is entered into after a complaint has been referred to the Tribunal. Counsel for the Commission did not agree, and took the position that Section 43 applied to any settlement reached between the parties and approved by the Commission, regardless of whether the settlement was reached before or after referral of a complaint to the Tribunal.

30I am of the view that Section 43 applies to all settlements, whether reached at the Commission stage, or after a complaint has been referred to the Tribunal. Indeed, because the Tribunal has no remedial powers under the Code in the absence of a finding that a party has breached a right of the Complainant, Section 43 is an important enforcement provision. In addition, Section 43, coming after the adjudication and remedial provisions relating to the Tribunal, would suggest that it applies to settlements reached at the Tribunal stage.

31Therefore, based on the undisputed facts, I find that there is a final Settlement of this Complaint, binding on all the parties. In view of this finding, I decline to grant any of the other substantive remedies sought by the Commission or the Complainant.

13In view of this finding that there was a final settlement of the original complaint, the parties were invited to provide submissions as to why the Tribunal should not dispose of the complaint on the basis of the settlement. The decision concludes: “Finally, if the Tribunal receives a referral of a Complaint under section 43 of the Code, it will hear the matter on an expedited basis”.

14No party filed submissions and by the decision dated June 19, 2006, the Tribunal stated:

As a result, the Tribunal hereby confirms that the settlement dated March 1, 2006 is final and binding on all the parties, and this Complaint is disposed of based upon that settlement.

15In my view, the decisions of May 18 and June 19, 2006 constitute a final decision that there was a final and binding settlement of the original complaint within the meaning of section 43 of the Code. They do not, however, constitute a final decision on what remedies the Tribunal might give with respect to a complaint that there has been a breach of section 43 of the Code. They could not be: at the time there was no such complaint before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the May 18 and June 19 decisions do not preclude Ms. Glover from raising those issues or having them addressed within the context of the present proceedings.

The January 22, 2007 Decision

16As noted, the Commission’s complaint was referred to the Tribunal on December 1, 2006. Ms. Glover was not named as a party to that complaint. By notice dated December 5, 2006, the Registrar scheduled an Initial Conference Call for December 18, 2006. On December 11, 2006, Ms. Glover filed a Notice of Motion in the Commission’s complaint seeking the following relief:

a) An order adding Ms. Glover as a party complainant;

b) An order that the Commission is in a conflict of interest position with respect to Ms. Glover, and as a result, further proactive measures are required in order to ensure that Ms. Glover can fully participate in this proceeding;

c) An order adding the Commission and its Director of Legal Services, Hart Schwartz, as party respondents;

d) An order prohibiting any internal Commission employee, contract or otherwise, to act as counsel;

e) An order requiring the Commission to fully pay for Ms. Glover’s counsel so that she may be properly represented;

f) An order inviting the Attorney General to intervene in its supervisory capacity over the Commission in order to ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done;

g) Such further and other relief as may be necessary and just and permitted by the Tribunal.

17By letter dated December 14, 2006 to the parties, the Registrar acknowledged receipt of Ms. Glover’s Notice of Motion and stated in part:

With the exception of the issue of having Ms. Glover added as a Complainant Party in Tribunal File 1207-06 [i.e. the Commission’s complaint], the Tribunal will not deal with the substance of the Motion on December 18, 2006.

18The Initial Conference Call took place on December 18, 2006. It appears that only counsel for Ms. Glover and counsel for the Commission participated. By email dated December 22, 2006 counsel for Ms. Glover wrote to the Registrar on behalf of herself and the Commission to advise of “updates in this matter with respect to Ms. Glover’s motion”. The email continues in part:

6. The Commission suggests a further conference call to complete/resolve any further procedural matters prior to setting dates for the hearing of the motion. Ms. Glover is content to proceed on that basis if a conference call can be scheduled during the week of January 2 – 5, 2007.

19By email dated January 2, 2007 counsel for the Commission confirmed that counsel for Ms. Glover “has accurately represented the Commission’s position”.

20By letter dated January 3, 2007 the Registrar advised the parties that: “The Tribunal has scheduled a conference call in the above matter further to the recent correspondence from the Commission and Ms. Sanson, Counsel to Ms. Glover”. That conference call took place on January 4, 2007.

21It appears incontrovertible, therefore, the notices sent to all parties prior to the conference calls of December 18, 2006 and January 4, 2007 indicated that other than Ms. Glover’s request to be added as a complainant party, the Tribunal was not going to address the substance of her motion during the conference call. As will become apparent this view is echoed in the positions taken by the potential responding parties, the Commission and Ms. Glover subsequent to the January 22, 2007 decision.

22In the January 22, 2007 decision the Tribunal gave certain directions with respect to a procedure to be followed concerning Ms. Glover’s request to be added as a party complainant to the Commission’s complaint. The Tribunal declined to entertain Ms. Glover’s requests for the other substantive relief stating:

(….) The Tribunal has the discretion and the jurisdiction to control its process and is not required to entertain any request from any person who may seek to participate in a proceeding. Ms. Glover is not, at this point, a party to this complaint. While her frustrations with the actions of the Commission may be entirely legitimate, permitting her to raise the arguments and requests set out in [paragraphs (b) to (f) of her Notice of Motion] would not advance the determination of this complaint.

23For the purposes of the chronology it is useful to note the decision repeated some of Ms. Glover’s allegations, referred to the fact her complaint named not only the respondents but the potential responding parties and, further, sought to add the potential responding parties as respondents to the Commission’s complaint.

24On January 29, 2007 counsel for the potential responding parties wrote to the Registrar raising concerns about the January 22, 2007 decision. Counsel stated her understanding that, apart from Ms. Glover’s request to be added as a complainant party, the Tribunal was not going to address the substance of her motion. The letter states in part:

Your letter to the parties dated December 14, 2006 stated that the Tribunal would not deal with the substance of the motion during the Initial Conference Call on December 18, 2006 (with the exception of Ms. Glover’s request to be added as a Complainant Party to the complaint), and we are confident that the intention of the Tribunal was not to deal with the substance of the motion.

The Commission [as potential responding party] and Mr. Schwartz strongly dispute these allegations and will address them in the complaint currently before the Trustee of Investigations. It is our understanding that during the two conference calls, counsel for the Commission and Ms. Glover were directed by the Tribunal not to discuss these matters. There was, accordingly, no opportunity for Commission counsel to respond to these allegations.

25The Tribunal invited submissions in response to this letter. By letter dated February 13, 2007 counsel for the Commission not only confirmed the understanding of counsel for the potential responding parties that, apart from Ms. Glover’s request to be added as a complainant party, the Tribunal was not going to address the substance of her motion, but also indicated that any attempt to address other issues during the conference call was discouraged by the Tribunal. Counsel wrote in part:

The Tribunal has held conference calls in this matter on December 18, 2006 and January 4, 2007. The purpose of these calls was to address procedural steps in dealing with the herein complaint and Ms. Glover’s motion. In fact, in its letter dated December 14, 2006, the Tribunal stated, “[w]ith the exception of the issue of having Ms. Glover added as a Complainant Party in Tribunal File 1207-06, the Tribunal will not deal with the substance of the Motion on December 18, 2006.” In other words, the substance of Ms Glover’s allegations against the Commission and its named employee was not to be addressed during the calls.

During both calls, the Tribunal appropriately and actively dissuaded the parties from discussing the allegations against the Commission and the named employee as set out in Ms. Glover’s complaint that is currently before the Trustee of Investigations. Notably, during the Initial Conference Call, Ms. Sanson did articulate many of these allegations and, when I did attempt to question the allegations, the Tribunal essentially asked that I not debate the substance of the allegations as the call was intended to deal with procedural matters. Regardless, the Tribunal was aware that Ms. Twohig at Crown Law Office-Civil separately represented the Commission (as potential respondent) and the named Commission employee, and it was her role to respond to the allegations, if required.

26By email dated February 13, 2006, counsel for Ms. Glover agreed with counsel for the Commission as to the scope of the issues to be covered in the conference calls and as to the fact that attempts to deal with the substance of her motions, other than the motion to be added as a party complainant, were discouraged by the Tribunal. The text of the email is as follows:

I am writing to seek a clarification of the Chair’s decision Interim Decision [sic] dated January 22, 2007. In the letter to the parties dated December 14, 2006, copied to Ms. Glover, the Tribunal stated that it would not be dealing with the substance of Ms. Glover’s motion during the conference call except for Ms. Glover’s request to be added as a party complainant. This was amended at the initial conference call to include Ms. Glover’s request to be added as an intervenor, in the alternative.

During both the initial conference call and the subsequent conference call, the Tribunal stated that its decision would relate to procedural matters only and would not affect any of the substantive rights of the parties. At paragraph 15 of the interim decision, the Tribunal states that it will not entertain certain requests made in Ms. Glover’s motion, namely the requests that relate to adding the Commission and Hart Schwartz as party respondents, and requests related to Ms. Glover’s belief that this proceeding could be tainted by perceived bias or conflict of interest by the Commission because of Ms. Glover’s outstanding complaint against the Commission and Schwartz in the same matter.

Following at paragraph 16, the Tribunal states that it makes two general observations. These are observations that relate to why Ms. Glover is not permitted to bring the balance of her motion at this stage of the proceedings, i.e., when she is not a party and seeking to be added as one. I interpret the Tribunal’s comments in paragraphs 17 – 19 as indicating that it is premature for Ms. Glover to bring these other matters by way of motion when she is not (or not yet) a proper party (or intervenor) in these proceedings. I further interpret the comments to mean that should Ms. Glover be added as party or intervenor, that Ms. Glover would then be in a position to bring these matters back to the Tribunal to have the balance of her motion heard and determined, which would be consistent with the Chair’s assurance that the decision at this stage would not affect substantive rights and would not indicate a prejudgment of these matters.

If I am wrong in my understanding of the Tribunal’s decision, then it [sic] I would appreciate being so advised at once so that I may obtain any necessary instructions as to whether Ms. Glover believes that her substantive rights have in fact been put to an end, requiring an application for judicial review.

27By letter dated February 23, 2007 to counsel for the potential responding parties the Registrar advised the changes sought by the potential responding parties could not be made in the absence of an adjudicative decision by the Tribunal. Accordingly, on March 9, 2007 counsel for the potential responding parties filed a Notice of Motion with the Tribunal seeking rewording of the January 22, 2007 decision and its removal from the Tribunal’s website. Prominent in the grounds for the motion was the fact that there was no notice of the intention of the Tribunal to deal with the substance of Ms. Glover’s motion, other than her request to be added as a party complainant.

28By decision dated March 19, 2007, the Tribunal dismissed the potential responding parties’ motion. The Tribunal noted the January 22, 2007 decision addressed “certain procedural issues”, but had made no findings of fact.

29There was other correspondence during this period from the parties and the potential responding parties to the Tribunal but it does not appear to be relevant to the issue at hand.

30It is difficult to see how the January 22, 2007 decision can be said to have been a decision with respect to any issue other than Ms. Glover’s request to be added as a party complainant to the Commission’s complaint. As detailed above, the Commission, the potential responding parties and, for that matter, Ms. Glover all took the position that this was the only issue before the Tribunal during the conference calls giving rise to the decision. Further, they all took the position that submissions with respect to other issues were actively discouraged during the conference calls.

31Nor is it necessary to read the January 22, 2007 decision as being a final decision with respect to other issues. As the Tribunal noted, at the time of the decision Ms. Glover was not a party to the proceedings. She now is. The issues she seeks to raise must be considered on that basis.

32Finally, I would note the Tribunal’s subsequent handling of these matters appears consistent with the conclusion that it had not finally determined these issues.

The December 11, 2007 Decision

33On August 21, 2007 the Commission referred parts of Ms. Glover’s complaint to the Tribunal. An Initial Conference Call was held in relation to this complaint on September 14, 2007. By letter dated September 21, 2007, the Registrar confirmed certain matters determined during the September 14, 2007 Initial Conference Call. One was that the Tribunal had determined that Ms. Glover’s request to be added as a party complainant to the Commission’s complaint was now moot given the referral of her own complaint to the Tribunal. Ms. Glover was also directed to file her requests to have potential responding parties added as respondents and to “raise an abuse of process claim”. There is no suggestion in the Registrar’s letter the Tribunal considered these issues had been finally determined by the January 22, 2007 decision.

34On November 28, 2007 Ms. Glover filed her requests, seeking the following:

a) The Commission and Mr. Schwartz be added as party respondents as was originally included in Ms. Glover’s complaint;

b) All allegations found in Ms. Glover’s complaint be heard and determined in this proceeding (i.e. that the allegations in her original complaint be heard and determined as a consequence of the respondents’ breach of settlement);

c) A finding be made that the Commission and Mr. Schwartz have engaged in an abuse of process causing such prejudice to Ms. Glover requiring immediate and ongoing remedial relief;

d) Remedial relief be ordered for Ms. Glover which includes funding by the Commission and Mr. Schwartz for representation of Ms. Glover by her own counsel that dates back to the Commission’s erroneous filing of the Form 3 and the consent order in relation to the 2001 complaint with the Tribunal on (or about) March 31, 2006; and

e) Further remedial relief for Ms. Glover as may be appropriate during the hearing and after a complete hearing of her complaint on the merits in order to ensure that all prejudice occasioned to Ms. Glover by the abuse of process has been remedied.

35As noted in the May 29, 2008 decision, during the May 8, 2008 hearing with respect to this matter, Ms. Glover abandoned certain of her December 11, 2006 remedial requests and agreed that her November 28, 2007 remedial requests subsumed the balance of her December 11, 2006 remedial requests.

36On December 11, 2007 the Tribunal issued a decision concerning the November 28, 2007 requests. The Tribunal expressed “considerable difficulty” with the request that all allegations which formed part of Ms Glover’s original complaint be heard and the request to add the potential responding parties as respondents, given the prior decisions, the Tribunal also identified “concerns” with Ms Glover’s remedial requests. The Tribunal made “procedural directions”, directing a hearing by way of conference call with respect to these issues. Ms. Glover was ordered to file further materials prior to that conference call, including the precise remedial relief she was seeking.

37(As noted, the Tribunal’s December 11, 2007 procedural directions were superseded by subsequent events. On December 21, 2007 Ms. Glover alleged bias on the part of the Chair and requested an order that he recuse himself. On January 17, 2008, the Chair determined that the file would be reassigned, and the file was subsequently reassigned to me.)

38Counsel for the Commission argues the December 11, 2007 decision essentially provided Ms. Glover with an opportunity to argue for the reconsideration of the previous decisions, which otherwise should be treated as final. Counsel for the respondents joins in this argument with respect to the decision concerning the effect of the settlement. Counsel for the potential responding parties adopts the positions of the Commission and the respondents. All of these arguments rest on the premise the previous decisions were final. For the reasons stated, I do not accept this premise.

39In the result I conclude the prior decisions do not preclude Ms. Glover from further advancing the following issues (once again, the lettering corresponds to the lettering used in the May 29, 2008 decision):

f) Admissibility of evidence of Eddie Taylor;

g) Request for production to Ms. Glover by the Commission;

j) Ms. Glover’s allegation of abuse of process by the Commission and Mr. Schwartz;

k) Ms. Glover’s request that the Commission and Mr. Schwartz be added as party respondents; and

l) Ms. Glover’s request that the allegations in her original complaint be heard and determined in these proceedings as a consequence of the respondents’ breach of the settlement of the original complaint.

Next Steps

40It appears to me that Ms. Glover’s November 28, 2007 remedial requests are, in effect, a motion to amend the complaint referred to the Tribunal on August 21, 2007. It also appears to me that the issue of whether to permit the complaint to be so amended should be addressed as preliminary issue if possible since it may resolve some or all of the issues identified in the preceding paragraph. I also note that all counsel are currently holding December 5, 2008. With this in mind, I invite submissions from all parties and the potential responding parties with respect to the following proposed procedure:

a) Ms. Glover shall have until November 7, 2008 to file any amendments she may wish to make to her submissions dated November 28, 2007.

b) The Commission, the respondents and the potential responding parties shall have until November 21, 2008 to file their responses to Ms. Glover’s submissions dated November 28, 2007, and any amendments thereto filed by November 7, 2008.

c) Ms. Glover shall have until November 28, 2007 to file reply to any responses filed.

d) On December 5, 2008 the parties and potential responding parties shall be allocated the following amounts of time to make oral submissions to supplement the written submissions filed in accordance with this decision:

a. Ms. Glover 1.5 hours;

b. The Commission 1.0 hour;

c. The potential responding parties 1.0 hour;

d. The respondents, 1.0 hour; and

e. Ms. Glover in reply, .5 hours

e) The hearing on December 5, 2008 will be held in Toronto and will commence at 9:30 AM. Counsel for the respondents may attend by telephone should she choose. Should Ms. Glover, the respondents or the potential responding parties wish to participate by telephone they will be similarly accommodated.

41The parties and potential responding parties shall have until October 31, 2008 to file any submissions they may wish to make with respect to this proposed procedure.