Elizabeth Lewis v. Markham Stouffville Hospital, 2009 HRTO 4

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Lewis

Applicant

-and-

Markham Stouffville Hospital, Barb Bitter, Helen Couperthwaite,

Sharon Moore and Jennifer Wellman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 5, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 4

Indexed as: Lewis v. Markham Stouffville Hospital

1This is an Application filed November 10, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). On November 20, 2008 the respondents filed their Response to the Application.

2On November 24, 2008 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal refusing to participate in mediation. A prior Interim Decision, 2008 HRTO 323, directed parties to prepare for a case resolution conference. On December 19 2008 the Registrar-Transition wrote to the parties offering a number of dates in March 2009 for a case resolution conference and asked the parties to confirm their availability by December 29, 2008. None of the parties has confirmed their availability for the case resolution conference on the dates offered by the Tribunal. Rather, on December 29 the applicant filed a Request for an Interim Remedy using Form 16 applicable to new applications made under sections 34 or 35 of the Code rather than s.53(3) applications. She seeks an Interim Order that her wages be paid beginning January 12, 2009 pending the resolution of the Application. The Request is deficient in a number of respects not the least of which is the failure to include sworn declarations and to have been served with an originating s. 34 application.

3The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Applications under Section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code (Section 53(3) Rules) and the Guide to Section 53(3) Applications, contemplate that the first step in a section 53(3) application is mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful, the application proceeds to a case resolution conference in accordance with Rule 9.1. The section 53(3) process is intended to be highly expeditious and, to that end, the parties have been offered hearing dates less than three months from today. Given the applicant’s own failure to confirm her availability for those hearing dates and the fact the Request is not properly made under either the section 53(3) or Part IV Rules the Tribunal will not consider the request at this time.

4Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following further case management directions:

a. The parties will confirm their availability for a two day case resolution conference on the dates previously offered by the Tribunal by the end of business January 12, 2009. Failing which the Tribunal will select dates peremptorily.

b. The applicant may renew her request for an interim remedy at the case resolution conference provided she does so in accordance with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure applicable to applications made under Part IV of the Code.