Moncur v. Beach Grove Golf and Country Club, 2011 HRTO 1792

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cathy Moncur Applicant

-and-

Beach Grove Golf and Country Club Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: October 3, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1792 Indexed as: Moncur v. Beach Grove Golf and Country Club

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cathy Moncur, Applicant ) Mary Jane Campigotto, Counsel Beach Grove Golf and Country Club, ) Nancy Jammu-Taylor, Counsel Respondent )

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s counsel’s request to reschedule a hearing date, and to request further written submissions from the parties on the outstanding issue of whether the settlement of the civil suit included a Release.

RESCHEDULING REQUEST

2On June 20, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled to continue on October 6 and 7, 2011. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness or representative.

3On August 30, 2011, the applicant’s counsel sent the Tribunal a letter which requested that the Tribunal reschedule the October 7, 2011 hearing date because she never received a copy of the Notice, and has another matter scheduled on that date.

4On September 1, 2011, the Tribunal sent the parties an e-mail which stated that it has records that confirm that the Notice was successfully transmitted to the applicant’s counsel’s fax number, and requested submissions from the respondent on the rescheduling request.

5On September 6, 2011, the respondent’s counsel sent the Tribunal a letter which opposed the rescheduling request. She stated that she received the Notice on June 20, 2011, and in light of the fact that the Tribunal confirmed that it also successfully delivered the Notice to the applicant’s counsel, there is no extraordinary circumstance that justifies rescheduling the hearing.

6On September 8, 2011, the applicant’s counsel sent the Tribunal a further letter, which stated that she inadvertently scheduled another matter for October 7, 2011, notwithstanding the fact that she had informed the Tribunal that she was available on that date, because of a health issue that causes fatigue.

7In my view, the applicant has identified extraordinary circumstances that justify adjourning and rescheduling the hearing. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she did not receive the Hearing Notice, and has health issues, which resulted in her inadvertently scheduling another matter for October 7, 2011. In the circumstances, both hearing dates are cancelled and will be rescheduled.

SECTION 45.1/ABUSE OF PROCESS/SECTION 34(11)

8With respect to the outstanding issue of whether the settlement of the civil suit included a Release, it is not clear to me from the parties’ written submissions what the current status of the Release is. Specifically, it is not clear to me whether or not the respondent and/or its counsel in the civil suit accepted the validity of the Release drafted by the applicant and her husband’s counsel. Accordingly, the Tribunal directs the parties to provide further written submissions on this issue.

ORDERS

9The Tribunal therefore makes the following orders:

a) The October 6 and 7, 2011 hearing dates are cancelled.

b) The parties shall communicate with each other, and advise the Registrar by no later than two weeks from the date of this Interim Decision as to their availability for a rescheduled two days of hearing. If no communication is received from the parties, the Tribunal may set the hearing dates without further consultation with the parties.

c) Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent shall deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal written submissions on the Release issue, and within four weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal written submissions in response.

10I am not seized of this matter.