Jeannine Pratt v. Living Waters Residence Inc., Clive Clarke and Melva Snow, 2011 HRTO 545

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeannine Pratt

Applicant

-and-

Living Waters Residence Inc., Clive Clarke and Melva Snow

Respondents

Interim decision

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: March 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 545

Indexed as: Pratt v. Living Waters Residence

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The hearing of this Application is scheduled for March 18, 2011. The applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal on March 9, 2011, indicating that she had health problems, which would not allow her to attend the hearing. However, she was not clear as to whether she wished to withdraw her Application or adjourn the hearing.

2A Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) was therefore issued on March 11, 2011, directing the applicant to clarify her request. The CAD also directed the parties to provide their submissions on whether Mr. Clarke’s employer and the residence for seniors where the applicant lives, Living Waters Residence Inc. (“Living Waters”), should be added as a respondent to this Application. It also directed the applicant to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

3No submissions with respect to adding “Living Waters” were received from the applicant or Ms. Snow, but Mr. Clarke, who is the Manager of Living Waters, provided a letter from his employer, which states that he acts on behalf of Living Waters and that it consents to being added. Living Waters is therefore added as a party, and the style of cause is amended to reflect its status as a respondent. Living Waters implies in its letter that it is relying on the pleadings, documents and witness statements filed by Mr. Clarke, but it must immediately confirm in writing whether this is the case.

4The applicant telephoned the Tribunal March 15, 2011, to clarify that she is requesting an adjournment because she is ill. She had attached to her earlier correspondence that advised she was ill what appear to be two requests from her doctor to laboratories to x-ray and take samples from the applicant, indicating that she is 80 years old. An adjournment is accordingly granted.

5The Tribunal will schedule a new hearing date. The applicant is reminded that she has still not complied with the CAD’s of February 14, 2011 and March 11, 2011, both of which directed her to immediately clarify which documents she intends to rely upon at the hearing and to immediately clarify whether she intends to bring witnesses to the hearing, and, if she does, what they will say. By April 4, 2011, the applicant must immediately provide this information in writing to the Tribunal with proof that she has copied the letter and any attachments to the respondents. Any future adjournment request from the applicant for medical reasons must be accompanied by a letter from her doctor indicating that she is unable to partipate in the hearing, and indicating when she is expected to be able to participate in a hearing.