Giannoula Karathanasis v. Total Credit Recovery Limited, 2013 HRTO 1442

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Giannoula Karathanasis Applicant

-and-

Total Credit Recovery Limited, Lori Digirolamo, Jim McFarlane and Loretta Pardetti Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: August 23, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1442 Indexed as: Karathanasis v. Total Credit Recovery Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Giannoula Karathanasis, Applicant Self-represented

Total Credit Recovery Limited, Lori Digirolamo, Jim McFarlane and Loretta Pardetti, Respondents Arlene Huggins, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and scheduled to be heard on September 23 and 24, 2013.

2This Interim Decision addresses request for an adjournment filed by the applicant and alerts the applicant to the fact that she has not met her obligations under the Rules to serve and file documents she intends to rely upon at the upcoming hearing as well as witness statements.

Request for Adjournment

3The request for adjournment has been filed approximately one month in advance of the hearing dates that were scheduled by way of a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing dated January 3, 2013.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states that:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

5The applicant indicates that due to financial constraints, she has been unable to retain and instruct counsel and, as a result, feels she cannot proceed with the hearing as scheduled.

6Although the applicant may prefer to proceed with the assistance of counsel, it is not a necessary condition of participation in the Tribunal’s process. If it was her intention to obtain legal representation, she has had ample time to do so since the filing of the Application on September 16, 2011.

7As such, there are no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the Tribunal’s normal practice. The adjournment request is denied and the hearing dates will proceed as scheduled.

Applicant’s Failure to Serve and File Hearing Documents, Witness List and Witness Statements

8The applicant has failed to comply with the obligations under Rules 16 and 17 to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents the party intends to rely upon no later than 45 days prior to the hearing. There are serious consequences for the case if this step is not taken, set out at the end of this Interim Decision.

9The Notice of Rescheduled Hearing, dated January 3, 2013, summarized the requirements as follows:

• Unless otherwise directed by the HRTO, not later than August 9, 2013 you must deliver to every other party and file with the HRTO:
• a list of all documents you intend to rely on at the hearing;
• a copy of each document on that list for the HRTO;
• a copy of every document on that list for each party or confirmation every document has already been provided to the other parties;
• a witness list that includes the name of every witness, including expert witnesses, you intend to present to the HRTO;
• a statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness;
• where you intend to rely on the evidence of a proposed expert witness, a copy of the expert’s written report or a full summary of the expert’s proposed evidence and the expert’s curriculum vitae;
• the Statement of Delivery of the Rule 16.2 list and documents on the other parties.

10In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada, 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained, at para. 7:

The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side’s case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing. In appropriate cases, adoption of the witness statements may take the place of examination-in-chief of the witness. Witness statements should therefore be detailed and set out the particular evidence that the witness will give, rather than just general topics. A witness statement should be filed for each witness, including an applicant or individual respondent. Where the Application or Response itself makes clear the proposed testimony, the witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application or Response is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant or individual respondent.

11The applicant is directed to immediately file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17, and if the applicant has not done so within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, the Tribunal may take any or all of the steps in Rule 5, including not permitting the applicant to call any witnesses at the hearing.