Cheryl Strock v. PwC Management Services LP, 2014 HRTO 252

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cheryl Strock

Applicant

-and-

PwC Management Services LP

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: February 24, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 252
Indexed as: Strock v. PwC Management Services LP

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cheryl Strock, Applicant

Erin Hallock, Counsel

PwC Management Services LP, Respondent

Kate Dearden, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, family status, marital status and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2This Application was initially scheduled for hearing June 23-25, 2014. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing informed the parties that if those dates were not acceptable they must advise the Tribunal of any conflict within 14 days. The respondent’s representative advised that she was not available on those dates within the time permitted.

3The Tribunal cancelled the June 2014 hearing dates and directed the parties to provide 5 sets of 3 consecutive mutually agreeable dates by January 24, 2014. The Tribunal also advised that if there was no agreement it might set hearing dates without the consent of the parties.

4The respondent proposed dates in the week of July 28 or in September or October 2014.

5This was not acceptable to the applicant and on January 27, 2014 she filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding asking that the hearing be scheduled in May or June 2014.

6The respondent takes the position this Request amounts to a Request to Expedite the hearing as it seeks dates prior to those originally set by the Tribunal.

decision and analysis

7The applicant has identified several reasons why she wants the hearing to be scheduled in May or June but has not filed a formal request to expedite or complied with the requirements of Rule 21. I assume, therefore, that she simply wants her hearing to be scheduled before the dates offered by the respondent but does not take the position her circumstances require urgent resolution within the meaning of Rule 21.

8In reviewing the parties’ submissions, it appears that the applicant refused to consider any dates other than in May and June and the respondent primarily offered September and October dates. However, the respondent also proposed the week of July 28, 2014. The applicant did not object to the July dates other than to maintain her position she wished the hearing to take place in May or June.

9Given the information provided by both parties, and being cognizant of the difficulties faced by the applicant, the Tribunal sets July 29, 30 and 31, 2014 as the dates for hearing this Application. A Notice of Confirmation of Hearing will be sent to the parties, which will contain new dates by which the parties will have to comply with Rule 17 with respect to providing documents to be used at the hearing and summaries of their witness’ evidence.

order

10This Application will be scheduled for hearing on July 29, 30 and 31, 2014.