HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sharon Lam
Applicant
-and-
Suncor Energy Partnership Products,
Charles Long and Robert Ruscica
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Lam v. Suncor Energy Partnership Products
1This Interim Decision is written in anticipation of the hearing in this matter, which is scheduled to proceed on Tuesday, December 17, 2013 commencing at 9:30 a.m.
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing and the applicant’s non-compliance with the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction dated November 14, 2013.
REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT
3By e-mail dated December 1, 2013, the applicant requested that the hearing on December 17, 2013 be re-scheduled to a later date in 2014 “due to unforeseen family matters”. No further information was provided by the applicant as to the nature of these unforeseen family matters or why they prevented her from attending the hearing.
4Accordingly, by letter dated December 3, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and directed the applicant to provide in writing further details in support of her request for adjournment, and to explain what unforeseen family matters have arisen and why this prevents her ability to appear at the hearing. The applicant was directed to provide this information by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2013.
5On December 4, 2013 at 4:44 p.m., the Tribunal received an e-mail from the applicant in response to its correspondence, however there was no information from the applicant contained in this e-mail. The Tribunal replied at 4:55 p.m. to advise the applicant that it was in receipt of her e-mail, but that the content of her e-mail appeared to be empty. The applicant was asked to confirm if she was attempting to deliver a response or attachment and, if so, to re-send. To date, no further communication has been received from the applicant.
6All respondents oppose the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the December 17 hearing. In particular, the personal respondent Robert Ruscica states that he has made special arrangements for someone to cover his responsibilities at work for that date, and also has arranged for two witnesses to attend the hearing on that date, who also had to make arrangements at work or with personal lives.
7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a . . . hearing . . . . 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.
Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.
The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax, copied to the other parties.
8At this time, it is my view that I do not have a sufficient basis to support that there are exceptional circumstances that would justify an adjournment at this late stage. The applicant has provided no information regarding the unforeseen family matters that she says have arisen nor has she indicated why this prevents her from attending the hearing. I also note that re-scheduling of the hearing at this late stage in the absence of exceptional circumstances would cause significant inconvenience to the respondents and their witnesses. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on December 17, 2013.
9Further, I am not prepared to put the respondents to further inconvenience if the applicant does not intend to attend the hearing on December 17, 2013. As a result, by noon on Friday, December 13, 2013, the applicant shall confirm in writing to the Tribunal and the respondents that she intends to attend the hearing. If no such confirmation is received by that time, the hearing will be cancelled and the Application will be dismissed as abandoned.
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CASE ASSESSMENT DIRECTION
10By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated November 14, 2013, it was noted that the applicant was not in compliance with her pre-hearing obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In particular, she had not filed a list of the witnesses she intends to call at the hearing, a statement of each witness’ evidence, or the documents upon which she intends to rely.
11In the CAD, she was directed to confirm whether she intends to testify herself as a witness and if the information in her Application represented a statement of her evidence. She further was asked to confirm whether she intended to call any other witnesses to testify at the hearing, and in particular her son who was present at the relevant time, and if so, to provide statements of their evidence. She also was directed to advise whether there were any documents upon which she intended to rely at the hearing, and if so, to file them with the Tribunal. The applicant was directed to do this within 14 calendar days of the date of the CAD, or by November 28, 2013.
12To date, no response from the applicant has been received by the Tribunal to this CAD. Further, in the Tribunal’s correspondence to the parties on December 3, 2013, the applicant was specifically asked to explain her failure to comply with the CAD. To date, she has not done so.
13Due to the applicant’s non-compliance with her pre-hearing obligations under the Rules and with the Tribunal’s CAD, I will not allow the applicant to call any witnesses at the hearing apart from herself nor will I allow her to introduce any documents into evidence. The information contained in the Application will be treated as a summary of the applicant’s evidence.
14I note that in their submissions, the respondents have requested that the Application be dismissed due to the applicant’s non-compliance with her pre-hearing obligations, with the Tribunal’s CAD and with the Tribunal’s December 3, 2013 correspondence. In my view, such an extraordinary remedy is not yet warranted at this stage. However, as stated above, if the applicant fails to confirm her intention to attend at the hearing by noon on December 13, 2013, the Application will be dismissed as abandoned.
15Finally, the respondents submit that the Application is not about a breach of the Code in any event, but instead at best involves allegations of rude behaviour with which the respondents do not concur. In my view, that is a matter to be addressed on the basis of the evidence at the hearing, if the hearing proceeds.
ORDER
16For the foregoing reasons, I hereby make the following order:
a. The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on December 17, 2013;
b. By noon on Friday, December 13, 2013, the applicant shall confirm in writing to the Tribunal and the respondents that she intends to attend the hearing. If no such confirmation is received by that time, the hearing will be cancelled and the Application will be dismissed as abandoned; and
c. At the hearing, the applicant will not be allowed to call any witnesses apart from herself nor will she be allowed to introduce any documents into evidence. The information contained in the Application will be treated as a summary of the applicant’s evidence.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of December, 2013.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair