Lee v. Peachtree Marketing Inc., 2010 HRTO 1139

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James Lee

Applicant

-and-

Peachtree Marketing Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: May 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1139

Indexed as: Lee v. Peachtree Marketing

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the June 23 and 24, 2010 hearing dates. The applicant has requested an adjournment, stating that one of his witnesses will be unavailable until the end of June 2010.

2On February 1, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Confirmation of Hearing Notice to the parties, which informed them that the hearing is scheduled for June 23 and 24. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s “Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments”. The Information Bulletin provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within five (5) days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness or representative.

3The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, sent to both parties on May 11, 2010. In regard to the adjournment request, the applicant was directed to deliver and file his witness list and provide a statement describing the intended evidence of each witness in accordance with Rules 17.1 and 17.2 above, and to provide the Tribunal with information about which witness is unavailable for the hearing as currently scheduled, what the reason is for the unavailability, and when the witness will be available. The Case Assessment Direction noted that, if the Tribunal did not receive the information required of the applicant by May 18, 2010, the hearing would proceed as scheduled.

4The respondent’s list of witnesses and statement describing the intended evidence of each witness was received by the Tribunal on May 18, 2010. The respondent apparently intends to call two witnesses, Vibert Vieira and Robert Lee.

5The applicant filed a list of witnesses and statements describing the intended evidence of each witness on May 16, 2010. The applicant apparently intends to call three witnesses, Amay Cheung, Vibert Vieira and Wu Chie Hong. However, the applicant has also listed five individuals whom he appears to believe the respondent is obliged to call as witnesses.

6The applicant’s materials indicate that he may be unaware of the procedure for calling witnesses in Tribunal proceedings. Parties are responsible for calling their own witnesses, by summons if necessary. Since the respondent is already calling Vibert Vieira, the applicant need not arrange for this individual to attend. However, the applicant is responsible for arranging the attendance of anyone else he wishes to call to give evidence. The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide and the Tribunal’s Guide to Hearings, both available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca, or from the Registrar.

7The applicant has indicated that the evidence of Wu Chie Hong will be directed to the applicant’s performance in the job he held with the respondent. It appears from the materials that the respondent does not deny the applicant’s ability to do that work. It therefore appears at this stage that this evidence is not relevant to the matters at issue in the hearing. If, on the day of the hearing, it appears that my preliminary view is not correct, the hearing can be adjourned.

8The applicant’s request for adjournment is denied. The hearing will proceed on the dates scheduled.