Smith v. The Rover’s Rest, 2011 HRTO 2188

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deborah Smith

Applicant

-and-

The Rover’s Rest and Bruce Dorman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: December 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2188

Indexed as: Smith v. The Rover’s Rest

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Deborah Smith, Applicant ) Self-represented

The Rover’s Rest and ) Bruce Dorman, Representative

Bruce Dorman, Respondents )

Decision

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether a new hearing should be held.

2On May 10, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for October 13 and 14, 2011.

3On October 7, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to the parties with respect to managing the hearing.

4On October 13, 2011, the applicant appeared at the hearing, but the respondents did not. I was satisfied that the respondents received notice of the hearing. Therefore, the hearing proceeded and was completed in the respondents’ absence.

5On October 16, 2011, the individual respondent sent the Tribunal an e-mail on behalf of himself and the organization respondent, which stated that he was unable to attend the hearing because his brother recently passed away in Northern Ireland and he went there from October 5-14, 2011.

6On November 17, 2011, the Tribunal issued a CAD, which directed the individual respondent to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal supporting documents to show that his brother died and that he travelled to Northern Ireland. The CAD also directed the applicant to provide written submissions in response to the respondents’ request for a new hearing.

7On November 25, 2011, the individual respondent filed a package with the Tribunal, which included a funeral card and a mass reading from his brother’s funeral in Belfast on October 4, 2011, as well as a baggage tag dated October 14, 2011, for a flight to Toronto that appears to have the individual respondent’s name on it.

8On November 29, 2011, the applicant filed written submissions, which opposed the respondents’ request for a new hearing. She stated that the individual respondent failed to provide concrete evidence that he was out of the country for his brother’s funeral. Alternatively, she stated that even if he was out of the country, he should have notified her and the Tribunal prior to the hearing, and asked for a rescheduled hearing. She stated that she had to take time off work to attend the hearing, found the process traumatic, and should not have to go through the process again.

9Based on the materials filed by the individual respondent, I am satisfied that he missed the hearing because of an emergency situation, i.e. he went to Northern Ireland to deal with his brother’s death. In these circumstances, the respondents’ request for a new hearing is justified, and the evidence that I heard on October 13, 2011, is voided from the record.

10However, because the respondents did not notify the applicant and the Tribunal prior to original hearing dates that they were unable to attend, which resulted in unrecoverable costs for the applicant and a waste of resources by the Tribunal, the next hearing dates shall be peremptory to the respondents, meaning that no adjournment or rescheduling requests will be granted.

11The Tribunal directs the parties to provide the Registrar with their availability for a new two-day hearing.