Courneya v. 2202176 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 62

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Courneya

Applicant

-and-

2202176 Ontario Inc. o/a V.I.P. Billiards Club

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie

Date: January 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 62

Indexed as: Courneya v. 2202176 Ontario Inc.

wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michelle Courneya, Applicant ) Self-represented

2202176 Ontario Inc. )

o/a V.I.P. Billiards Club, Respondent ) No one

1Michelle Courneya filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. A hearing is scheduled for April 30, 2012. This Interim Decision addresses her request to either postpone the hearing or conduct it by way of videoconference or teleconference.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) on December 13, 2011. She stated that she will be moving out of the province in late February of 2012 for an indefinite period of time and will be unable financially to return to Ontario for the hearing in April. She requested either a postponement of the hearing or that she be able to testify by videoconference.

3The respondent did not file a Response to the RFOP.

4The applicant is alleging that she was in an unpaid trainee position with the respondent. She alleges that she was unable to attend a shift because of a miscarriage. She alleges that when she called back after her recovery to schedule her shift, she was told that her services were no longer required. The respondent denies that the applicant provided any application for employment (formal or informal) and denies that the applicant worked at or received training in any capacity at the club.

Decision

5The decision on whether to allow a witness to testify by teleconference rests with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has generally not allowed testimony by teleconference where the credibility of the witness is a significant issue or where the witness' evidence is either extensive or key to the proceedings: Zeividavi v. Catholic Immigration Services, 2011 HRTO 406 at para. 15.

6In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to allow the applicant to testify by teleconference or videoconference. Given that the respondent denies that the applicant had any relationship with it, credibility will be a significant issue. In addition, the evidence of the applicant will be key to the proceeding.

7The applicant has not suggested an alternate date for an in-person hearing. If the applicant proposes dates for the hearing later in 2012, those dates will be considered by the Tribunal, after confirming the availability of the respondent.

8The Tribunal makes the following orders:

i. The Request to have the hearing conducted by way of teleconference is denied.

ii. The applicant can propose alternate dates for a hearing in 2012 and those dates will be considered after confirming the availability of the respondent. If the applicant chooses to request and provide alternate dates she must send them to the Tribunal copied to the Respondent within 2 weeks of this Decision.

9I am not seized.