HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Applicant Liliane Lincourt
-and-
Le Centre de santé communautaire Hamilton/Niagara Respondent
Interim decision
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: March 16, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 528 Indexed as: Lincourt v. Le Centre de santé communautaire Hamilton/Niagara
WRITTEN SUBMISISONS
Linette Lincourt, Applicant ) Self-represented Centre de santé communautaire ) Sébastien Huard, Counsel Hamilton/Niagara, Respondent )
1This is an Application made under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) dated December 7, 2010.
2The applicant seeks a one month extension of the deadline for filing her Reply with the Tribunal. The respondent opposes the extension.
3I have considered the reasons provided by the parties, and the applicant is granted an extension of two weeks to file her Reply with the Tribunal.
4The applicant also requests that any further correspondence from the Tribunal be provided in English and that the proceedings take place in English.
5The respondent opposes her request.
6The respondents have chosen to communicate with the Tribunal and the applicant in all correspondence in this Application in French.
7The Tribunal’s practice in bilingual applications is to communicate during the pre-hearing process in the language of French or English as indicated by the parties. In this case, as the applicant prefers communication in English and the respondents prefer communication in French, all written communication from the Tribunal to the parties is provided in both English and French. A bilingual case processing officer is available to answer oral inquires from the parties in their language of choice. However, the Tribunal’s practice is to accept written communications from the parties in the language in which it is received. The Tribunal does not translate the applicant’s material into French or the respondents’ material into English. During the hearing process, the Tribunal will provide translation of the proceedings and the oral evidence of the witnesses from French to English and English to French as required, and the hearing will be conducted by a bilingual adjudicator.
8The Tribunal does communicate with the applicant in English, but it does not translate the respondents’ communications into English. Therefore, to the extent that communications occur in French, they are by other parties who are exercising their rights to communicate in French in accordance with Ontario law, pursuant to the French Language Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. F, 32 as amended.
9By offering interpretation services during the mediation and hearing process, the Tribunal attempts to alleviate challenges where the parties speak different languages and comply with its obligation to provide its services in French and English.
10The request for all communication in this matter to be in English and the request for the proceedings to be in English is denied.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of March, 2011
”signed by”_____________
Maureen Doyle Vice-chair