Ketchum v. Serco DES Inc., 2011 HRTO 1545

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Traci Lynn Ketchum Applicant

-and-

Serco DES Inc. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 18, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1545 Indexed as: Ketchum v. Serco DES Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on July 16, 2010.

2The Notice of Hearing in this matter was issued on June 21, 2011, scheduling the hearing in the Application for January 6, 2012. On the same day, the applicant sent correspondence to the Tribunal indicating that she will not be able to attend the hearing. She states:

…I no longer live in Ontario and therefore will not be able to travel to Ontario for any meeting, no matter what the date and time…My military duties will no[t] allow for time off for this matter and [I] wish to proceed as we have been doing thus far, by correspondence.

3On June 29, 2011, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1240 noting that the Application pertains to alleged conversations between the applicant and respondent staff and, therefore, the Tribunal may be required to make findings of fact or credibility based on the oral evidence of witnesses. The Tribunal held this is not a matter that may be determined based on written submissions only. The Tribunal held that the applicant’s presence is required in order to ensure that evidence and argument can be provided and the hearing takes place in a fair, just and expeditious manner. The Tribunal refused to proceed based on written submissions only.

4The Interim Decision directed the applicant to advise the Tribunal within two weeks whether she wished to proceed with the hearing scheduled for January 6, 2012, or ask the Tribunal to re-schedule in accordance with proposed alternative dates. The Interim Decision stated that if the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal within two weeks, the Tribunal may decide that she has abandoned the Application and dismiss it on that basis.

5On July 15, 2011, the applicant emailed the Tribunal requesting more time to “sort out her schedule” with respect to work.

6On July 25, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction which extended the timeline set in the Interim Decision to August 5, 2011. The applicant did not communicate or correspond with the Tribunal in accordance with the August 5, 2011 timeline.

7The applicant recently wrote to the Tribunal by email dated August 15, 2011 and advised that she is still not able to propose alternate dates as to when she would be available for a hearing. The applicant indicates that she is unable to do so because she is “preparing for a tour over seas”.

8It has now been over one month since the Tribunal issued the Notice of Hearing. The Notice of Hearing stated that, if a party is unable to attend the hearing on the scheduled date, the party must act quickly to arrange for rescheduling by providing dates that are mutually available to all parties within 12 weeks of the original hearing date or if parties are unable to agree on dates, then the party asking for the hearing to be rescheduled must provide five alternative dates that are within 12 weeks of the original hearing date. The Notice of Hearing directed the parties’ attention to the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, which sets out the circumstances for requests for rescheduling.

9The applicant has failed to advise the Tribunal of any attempts to secure mutually agreeable alternate dates and instead indicates that she is unable to inform the Tribunal of a date that she is available for a hearing because she preparing for a tour over seas. The applicant has not confirmed that she intends to proceed with this Application and intends to provide alternate dates. The applicant has not complied with providing alternate dates. Accordingly, in these circumstances, I find that the applicant has abandoned the Application. The applicant was provided with ample opportunity to provide alternate dates for rescheduling the hearing, but has not done so.

10Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.