Kharb v. B & B Alarms, 2014 HRTO 1642

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Lakshmi Kharb Applicant

-and-

B & B Alarms and Balu George Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: November 12, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1642 Indexed As: Kharb v. B & B Alarms

1A hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled for November 14, 2014 in Toronto. This Interim Decision addresses a request for an adjournment filed by email on November 3, 2014, and a Form 10 filed by the applicant seeking to call a witness by telephone at the hearing.

Request to Adjourn

2On November 3, 2014, the respondent Balu George sent an email to the Tribunal dated November 1, 2014 advising that his father is in “serious condition” and on a “ventilator” in India and that as a result, he and Mathew George (the contact person for the corporate respondent) are leaving for India on November 1, 2014, with a planned date of return of November 14, 2014. Mr. George asked that the hearing date be changed, which I interpret as a request for an adjournment.

3The Tribunal asked the applicant if she was agreeable the foregoing and on November 5, 2014, the applicant filed an email stating that she did not agree to adjourn the hearing. No reasons were provided nor did the applicant appear to dispute the information provided.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments states that outside the 14-day period following the date of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, requests for adjournment will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative.

5In this case, while I am concerned that the respondent Balu George has not filed detailed submissions in support of his request or provided any supporting documentation, I am mindful that he is unrepresented. Further, the applicant has not challenged the veracity of what is claimed and it would appear that both respondents are now in India. In all of the circumstances, in light of the reason given and the submissions made, I grant the request for an adjournment.

6Upon his return, the respondent Balu George is directed to file medical documentation confirming his father’s condition. Further, in the event that Mr. George seeks an adjournment in the future, he will be required to file documentation in support of his request unless the Tribunal directs otherwise.

Applicant’s Form 10

7On October 27, 2014, the applicant filed a Form 10 asking that one of her witnesses be permitted to give her evidence over the telephone. The reason given is that the witness cannot appear on the hearing date.

8In the normal course, the respondent’s response is due today. To date, no response has been received.

9Given that the hearing date will now be re-scheduled, it may be that the applicant can now present the witness’ evidence in the usual way, i.e. in person. Within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Rescheduled Hearing, the applicant shall advise the Tribunal in writing if she continues to request that the witness provide her evidence by telephone. If the request is renewed, the respondents are required to file a response within 14 days of the date that the applicant renews her request.

Summary of Directions

10The Tribunal directs:

• The request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for November 14, 2014 is granted;

• By November 25, 2014, Balu George shall file medical documentation in respect of his father’s condition as set out in his adjournment request dated November 1, 2014 and filed November 3, 2014;

• Any future requests for an adjournment by Balu George shall be made in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction referred in paragraph 4 above, set out detailed reasons in support of the request and be accompanied by supporting documentation;

• Within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Rescheduled Hearing, the applicant shall advise the Tribunal in writing if she continues to request that the witness identified in the Form 10 provide her evidence by telephone; and

• Subject to the applicant renewing her request to present a witness’ evidence by telephone, the respondents are required to file a response within 14 days of the date that the applicant renews her request setting out their position and any submissions in support of their consent or opposition to the request as the case may be.