[1] A Hearing in this matter is scheduled for November 6, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to participate in the hearing by teleconference.

[2] The applicant, who moved to Nova Scotia asks that the hearing be conducted by teleconference. She asserts that she moved there for work following the loss of employment caused, she alleges, by the discriminatory acts of the respondents.

[3] The respondents oppose the applicant’s participation by teleconference on the basis that they need to cross examine the applicant in person as credibility is an important issue in this case.

[4] Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures Governing Transitional Applications under section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended provides that the Tribunal “may conduct…a hearing …in person, in writing, by telephone, or by other electronic means, as it considers appropriate.”

[5] Section 5.2(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 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.

[6] I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to hold this hearing by telephone and therefore do not need to determine whether there is significant prejudice to the respondents. There are serious credibility issues involved. 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.

[7] In this case, the applicant has not submitted any reason for seeking to participate by telephone other than the expense associated with travelling and the inconvenience of absenting herself from work. These reasons fall far short of the type of circumstances that would justify the applicant’s request.

Dated at Toronto, this 21^st^ day of October, 2009.

“Signed by”

Kaye Joachim

Alternate Chair

Kerrie Pinkney v. Datex Billing Services, Jim Dawson and Lori Dawson, 2009 HRTO 1732

Case Summary

[1] A Hearing in this matter is scheduled for November 6, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to participate in the hearing by teleconference.

[2] The applicant, who moved to Nova Scotia asks that the hearing be conducted by teleconference. She asserts that she moved there for work following the loss of employment caused, she alleges, by the discriminatory acts of the respondents.

[3] The respondents oppose the applicant’s participation by teleconference on the basis that they need to cross examine the applicant in person as credibility is an important issue in this case.

[5] Section 5.2(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 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: