Chetwyn v. Toronto District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1112

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rachel Chetwyn

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Laura Pagnotta, Peter Paputsis, Lindsay McWaters and Kien Luu

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: June 21, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1112 Indexed as: Chetwyn v. Toronto District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rachel Chetwyn, Applicant

No Submissions Filed

Toronto District School Board, Laura Pagnotta, Peter Paputsis , Lindsay McWaters and Kien Luu, Respondents

Wendy Lopez, Counsel

1In a Case Assessment Direction, dated April 30, 2013, in this matter, the Tribunal made the following direction at paragraph 9:

The Tribunal directs the parties to confer and advise the Tribunal of three consecutive dates on which they are available for hearing between September 16 and November 22, 2013 within 14 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, failing which the Tribunal shall schedule three consecutive days of hearing in October 2013.

2On May 15, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) seeking variation of the Case Assessment Direction. The applicant did not file a response to the Request and the time for doing so has passed. The Case Assessment Direction was issued because the parties were, and apparently still are, experiencing difficulty in finding mutually agreeable dates for the hearing in the Fall of 2013. The difficulty arose in part because of respondents’ counsel’s busy litigation schedule and the applicant’s desire for consecutive hearing dates.

3In the Request, the respondents advised that their counsel is available on the following dates: September 27, 2013, November 8, 2013, November 15, 2013 and November 22, 2013. The respondents submitted that scheduling the hearing on these dates would move the matter forward in a timely manner and noted that it was not uncommon for the Tribunal to schedule hearing dates on non-consecutive dates. The respondents submitted that the applicant has stated that “work” and “childcare” are the applicant’s reasons for wanting consecutive dates, as well as the fact that the hearing was originally scheduled on consecutive dates. The respondents submitted that without a more detailed explanation, the Tribunal cannot conclude that consecutive dates are in fact something the applicant needs as opposed to prefers. The respondents submitted that the applicant’s representative, Ms. Eisenberg, stated in correspondence that “she is available on any date in the Fall of 2013” and therefore requested that the Tribunal schedule the hearing on any three of the dates on which their counsel is available.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

4As noted in the Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal has a mandate to adjudicate Applications in a fair, just and expeditious manner. In my view, completing the first three days of hearing by November 22, 2013 would be adequately expeditious. I agree with the respondents that the applicant has not, to date, provided sufficient information to conclude that holding the hearing on consecutive dates is a necessity. Accordingly, varying the Tribunal’s direction in the manner the respondent requested is appropriate. However, the respondents may have interpreted Ms. Eisenberg’s correspondence somewhat liberally. In an e-mail message dated May 9, 2013, Ms. Eisenberg stated that she was “currently available for the hearing in October and November”. She did not state that she was available for “any date in the Fall of 2013”. It may be that the respondents’ interpretation is correct, but in these circumstances I am not prepared to set the hearing dates as the respondents requested. Finally, the Tribunal’s schedulers have informed me that the hearing schedule for September 2013 is largely set and therefore it is unlikely that it will be possible to schedule a hearing date in September in this matter.

ORDER

5Paragraph 9 of the Case Assessment Direction dated April 30, 2013, in this matter is varied to read as follows:

The Tribunal directs the parties to confer and advise the Tribunal of three dates on which they are available for hearing between October 1 and November 22, 2013 by June 28, 2013, failing which the Tribunal shall schedule three days of hearing between October 1, 2013 and November 22, 2013.

6I am not seized.