Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 919

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Esther del Carmen Mancebo-Munoz Applicant

-and-

NCO Financial Services Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 27, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 919 Indexed as: Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Esther del Carmen Mancebo-Munoz, Applicant Self-represented

NCO Financial Services Inc, Respondent Randy Ai, Counsel

Introduction

1This decision addresses the applicant’s request for an extension of the deadlines contained in my Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 862 dated May 17, 2013.

2In the May 17, 2013 Interim Decision I provided written reasons for granting the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing that was scheduled to take place May 13-15, 2013 which was adjourned on May 10, 2013. As I indicated in the Interim Decision, there were factors that weighed both for and against an adjournment at the time.

3However, I was persuaded that an adjournment was appropriate on the understanding that the applicant had retained counsel for this proceeding. This understanding came from the note from her doctor which stated in its relevant part as follows:

Unfortunately, due to her high level of anxiety in anticipation of the upcoming hearing she [the applicant] did not retain a lawyer. She has remedied that but the lawyer is only available starting May 21, 2013.”

4In the Interim Decision, I granted the adjournment to the applicant with the following two conditions attached:

a. By May 24, 2013, the applicant’s counsel was directed to confirm with the Tribunal and the respondent that he or she had been retained to represent the applicant. He or she was also directed to provide his or her full contact information to the Tribunal and the respondent.

b. By June 7, 2013, the applicant and/or her counsel were directed to file with the Tribunal, with a copy to the respondent, a list of witnesses who the applicant expects to give evidence at the hearing as well as a detailed statement of the evidence each witness is expected to provide.

5I noted in the Interim Decision that, if the applicant failed to comply with the condition set out in paragraph (b) above, the Tribunal may dismiss her Application.

6By correspondence dated May 23, 2013, the applicant seeks a further extension of the two deadlines set out in the Interim Decision because she cannot afford a lawyer. It is clear from her letter that she has not in fact retained counsel as her doctor had indicated in his letter on which my last Interim Decision was based.

7The respondents object to an adjournment.

8I am not persuaded that a further extension is appropriate in the circumstances. The Tribunal has found that financial concerns relating to the retention of counsel do not amount to “exceptional circumstances” warranting an adjournment. See, for example, Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1663.

order

9Accordingly, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request for an extension of the deadlines set out in Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 862 dated May 17, 2013 is denied.

b. By June 7, 2013, the applicant shall file with the Tribunal, with a copy to the respondent, a list of witnesses who the applicant expects to give evidence at the hearing as well as a detailed statement of the evidence each witness is expected to provide. The applicant and/or her counsel must include a detailed statement of the evidence that the applicant will provide if she herself intends to testify at the hearing.

c. If the applicant fails to comply with paragraph (b) above, her Application may be dismissed.