HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rosa Andreetta
Applicant
-and-
Shoppers Drug Mart Specialty Health Network
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ruth Carey
Indexed as: Andreetta v. Shoppers Drug Mart Specialty Health Network
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s requests of February 26, 2014, seeking: an adjournment of the hearing currently scheduled for March 13, and 14, 2014; and an extension of time to file and deliver amended witness statements. For the reasons stated below the request for adjournment is denied; the request for an extension of time is granted.
2On February 19, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to explain to the applicant the Tribunal’s expectations with respect to witness statements; and to inform the parties that their witness statements may be introduced into evidence as exhibits at the hearing and used in whole or in part as a substitute for examination-in-chief.
3The CAD says:
On August 26, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing (“the Notice”) scheduling this Application for hearing on March 13 and 14, 2014. As is the Tribunal’s normal practice, the Notice explained in detail the parties’ obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice with respect to disclosure and production. With respect to the obligation to produce witness statements, the Notice says:
The witness statements should be detailed and set out in full the testimony that the witness will give.
The importance of this requirement with respect to the content of witness statements is explained by the Tribunal in C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada, 2010 HRTO 426, at para. 7, as follows:
The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side’s case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing. In appropriate cases, adoption of the witness statements may take the place of examination-in-chief of the witness. Witness statements should therefore be detailed and set out the particular evidence that the witness will give, rather than just general topics. A witness statement should be filed for each witness, including an applicant or individual respondent. Where the Application or Response itself makes clear the proposed testimony, the witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application or Response is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant or individual respondent. [Emphasis added.]
According to the list of witnesses filed by the applicant, she intends to call eight witnesses in addition to herself at the hearing. Each of the witness statements for these eight witnesses identifies the topic or general area of evidence that the witness is expected to give but contains no particulars. For example, the witness statement of the applicant’s doctor states in its entirety:
Evidence relating to her consultations with the Applicant starting on or about February 14, 2012;
Evidence of the Applicant’s medical condition(s) and treatment;
Evidence relating to the completion of the Attending Physician/Specialist Statement form; and
Evidence relating to the Applicant’s accommodation needs.
The rest of the applicant’s witness statements contain no particulars and it is not clear who the proposed witnesses are in relation to the applicant and the respondent. The witness statements of three proposed witnesses… imply their testimony will be entirely hearsay.
4As a result, the CAD directs the applicant to file and deliver revised witness statements by March 3, 2014, and notifies the parties that their witness statements may be introduced into evidence as exhibits and used in whole or in part as a substitute for examination-in-chief of that witness.
5On February 26, 2014, the Tribunal received two letters from the applicant seeking to adjourn the hearing and to extend the time for filing revised witness statements. The letters indicate the respondent does not consent to the applicant’s requests.
6The stated reasons for the applicant’s requests are:
The CAD was not received until February 24, 2014, and applicant’s counsel did not review it until February 25, 2014, because he was on vacation;
The applicant’s counsel’s schedule and the unavailability of some of the applicant’s witnesses mean the applicant cannot comply with the CAD;
In particular, the applicant’s physician is in the middle of changing medical practices and applicant’s counsel has been unable to arrange a meeting with her until March 17, 2014.
7The Tribunal has produced and made available on its web site its Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments (the “Practice Direction”). It says in part:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. 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.
8Although the Practice Direction is not binding on me I see no reason not to follow it in this instance. In my view, the stated reasons for the applicant’s request for adjournment do not constitute exceptional circumstances. The Notice of Rescheduled Hearing informing the parties of the hearing date and the timelines for disclosure and production was issued by the Tribunal on August 26, 2013. This means the applicant has had six months to interview witnesses, prepare witness statements, and issue summonses to her proposed witnesses. The applicant was represented by the same counsel throughout that entire period. The Notice of Rescheduled Hearing also includes information about the Practice Direction as well as the information described in the CAD about witness statements needing to be detailed. As a result, the request to adjourn the hearing is denied.
9With respect to the request for an extension of time to file the amended witness statements, given the assertion in the applicant’s letters that the Tribunal’s CAD was not received by her until February 24, 2014, the request for an extension of time is reasonable. However, the respondent is entitled to adequate time to prepare. As the hearing is scheduled to begin on Thursday, March 13, 2014, it would not unduly prejudice the respondent to extend the deadline to 12 noon on March 10, 2014.
DECISION
10The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for March 13, and 14, 2014, is denied.
11The applicant’s deadline for filing and delivering amended witness statements is extended to 12 noon, on March 10, 2014.
Dated at Toronto, this 27^th^ day of February, 2014.
“Signed By”
Ruth Carey
Member