Sonia Chisholm v. Frank Scarpitti, Alan Ho and Jack Heath, 2013 HRTO 959

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sonia Chisholm Applicant

-and-

Frank Scarpitti, Alan Ho and Jack Heath Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: May 30, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 959 Indexed as: Chisholm v. Scarpitti

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sonia Chisholm, Applicant Self-represented

Frank Scarpitti, Alan Ho and Jack Heath, Respondents Lisa Riegel, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities. By Case Assessment Direction dated January 23, 2013, the Tribunal directed that this proceed to a summary hearing to determine whether the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.

2The summary hearing was scheduled for May 31, 2013. The applicant wrote to the respondent and Tribunal advising that she was called away to a family emergency and requested an adjournment. The respondent advised that it was not consenting to the adjournment unless the matter could be rescheduled within two weeks of the date of the currently scheduled summary hearing.

3In response to a request for further information, the applicant advised that she has travelled to the United States to take care of a sick relative; that this was an emergency she could not have anticipated at the time of being advised of the date of the summary hearing; and that she does not have her file materials with her.

4I am of the view that this constitutes an exceptional circumstance as anticipated by the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for an adjournment is granted.

5The Registrar’s office will contact the parties to reschedule the summary hearing teleconference.