Haskins v. Religious Hospitaliers of Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London, 2010 HRTO 1550

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

The Religious Hospitaliers of Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London operating as Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital and EMS-Essex Windsor

Respondents

-and-

Windsor Police Services

Intervenor

A N D B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Windsor,

Windsor Police Services and Jeffery Dalpe

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: July 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1550

Indexed as: Haskins v. Religious Hospitaliers of Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London

1The applicant has filed two related Applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”). A hearing has been scheduled for September 20 and 21, 2010 in London, Ontario to hear these Applications. The applicant has asked that the hearing be held in Toronto or, in the alternative, that she be allowed to participate by teleconference or videoconference from Toronto or that, in the further alternative, her costs for attending in London be covered. This Interim Decision addresses these requests.

BACKGROUND

2On June 2, 2009 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation scheduling a mediation on July 24, 2009 for the parties in Application 2009-01482-I. The mediation was scheduled to take place in Windsor which is where the alleged discrimination took place. The applicant subsequently communicated to the Tribunal that she would be unable to attend a mediation in Windsor for a number of reasons including reasons related to grounds covered under the Code. The Tribunal then rescheduled the mediation to London in order to accommodate the Code-related needs cited by the applicant. London is the closest regional hearing centre to Windsor. The mediation took place in London as scheduled with the applicant in attendance.

3The Tribunal has now scheduled the hearing of the applicant’s two Applications for September 20 and 21, 2010 in London at the London Public Library. In an e-mail to the Tribunal dated May 25, 2010 the applicant indicated that she would not attend a hearing in London and asked that it be moved to Toronto. The applicant lives in the Greater Metropolitan Toronto area. The principal reason given by the applicant for requesting the change in venue was the cost of having to travel to London given her limited finances.

4In a letter from the Tribunal to the applicant dated June 16, 2010 and copied to the respondents, the Tribunal stated that it does not move hearings as a result of financial costs associated with travel to the hearing venue. The Tribunal indicated that where a request for a change in hearing venue is made the request must set out how the inability to travel, including by public transportation, is linked to a Code-related need. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide any further information she wished to provide in relation to her request. The Tribunal further invited the applicant (and the other parties) to indicate whether they were amenable to participating in the hearing by teleconference.

5In response the applicant sent an e-mail to the Tribunal dated June 25, 2010 in which she stated that she would not attend the hearing in London unless the Tribunal accommodated her needs by issuing her a return bus ticket from Toronto. Alternatively, the applicant stated that she could participate in the hearing by videoconference or teleconference from Toronto. The applicant suggested that the Rules of Civil Procedure allow for persons to participate in proceedings by videoconference or teleconference and that it would be a violation of the Code with respect to accessibility and accommodation not to allow her to participate by teleconference or videoconference from Toronto.

6The respondents have made no submissions on the issue of where the hearing should take place or whether a party should be allowed to participate by teleconference or videoconference.

Decision

7The applicant’s requests are denied. The request to hold the hearing in Toronto is denied on the basis that the applicant has not established that she has a Code-related reason for why the hearing would need to take place in Toronto or why she would be unable to attend the hearing in London. I note that the applicant was previously able to attend a mediation in London and has, in fact, indicated that she would be able to attend the hearing in London if her travel costs are paid for.

8The applicant’s request that the Tribunal pay her travel costs is denied. The Tribunal does not cover the costs for travel to its proceedings nor does it move hearings because of the financial costs to a party to travel to the hearing venue.

9The applicant’s request to participate in the hearing by teleconference or videoconference from Toronto is denied. Rule 3.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedures governing Applications under section 34 of the Code does provide that the Tribunal “may conduct hearings in person, in writing, by telephone, or by other electronic means, as it considers appropriate.” This rule makes clear that the decision as to how a hearing will be conducted is at the discretion of the Tribunal, that it will choose what it considers to be appropriate.

10I am not satisfied in the present case that allowing the applicant to participate by teleconference or videoconference is appropriate. As stated in Pinkney v. Datex Billing Services, 2009 HRTO 1732, the Tribunal’s 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. This is a matter involving two Applications, four respondents and a number of potential witnesses and the applicant’s physical presence is, in my view, required in order to ensure that evidence and argument can be provided clearly and in a timely fashion and that the hearing takes place in a fair, just and expeditious manner. 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 reasonable. However, the applicant has not submitted any reason for seeking to participate by teleconference or videoconference other than the expense associated with traveling.

11The applicant has suggested that it would be a violation of the Code not to accommodate her request for teleconference or a videoconference. However, the applicant has not established why this would be, given that she has indicated that the barrier to her attending the hearing in London is her travel-related costs. The applicant’s further reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure are not relevant as these rules do not apply to the Tribunal’s processes and are, like the Tribunal’s rule, discretionary in nature.

12The applicant is directed to indicate within 14 days of this Interim Decision whether she will appear for her hearing on September 21 and 22, 2010 in London Ontario.