Cathy Caster v. George Brown College, 2009 HRTO 1515

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Cathy Caster Applicant

-and-

George Brown College Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: September 22, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1515 Indexed as: Caster v. George Brown College

1A Hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 20, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to participate in the hearing by teleconference.

2On June 30, 2009, the applicant agreed to the date of October 20, 2009 for the hearing. The Tribunal confirmed this hearing date by Notice dated July 14, 2009. The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on August 6, 2009 indicating that she would like to participate by teleconference because she was moving to British Columbia after September 21, 2009. The applicant has since moved.

3Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures Governing Transitional Applications under section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code provides that the Tribunal “may conduct…a hearing …in person, in writing, by telephone, or by other electronic means, as it considers appropriate.”

4Section 5.2(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. s.22, as amended, provides that the burden is on the party opposing to show that it may be caused significant prejudice if the hearing is held by telephone:

The tribunal shall not hold an electronic hearing if a party satisfies the tribunal that holding an electronic rather than an oral hearing is likely to cause the party significant prejudice.

5I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to hold this Hearing by telephone. The ordinary expectation is that participants, especially parties, make themselves available in person to testify and submit to cross-examination and also be present in person to question other witnesses. There have been circumstances where the Tribunal has permitted witnesses to participate by telephone where the extent and nature of their testimony made such arrangements fair, just and expeditious. A need for Code-related accommodation would also be seriously considered.

6The nature of the allegations in this case will involve several witnesses and an assessment of credibility, making a teleconference difficult. The applicant has not submitted any reason for seeking to participate by telephone other than the fact that she moved to British Columbia after agreeing to the hearing date. The request to participate by teleconference is denied.

7The applicant is directed to confirm to the Tribunal and the respondent in writing within ten days of receipt of this Interim Decision that she will be in attendance at the hearing on October 20, 2009. If such confirmation is not received, the Tribunal may consider the applicant to have abandoned the Application.