Zhuo v. 1472359 Ontario Limited, 2014 HRTO 281

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lima Zhuo

Applicant

-and-

1472359 Ontario Limited o/a IBT College Business Travel & Tourism

Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: March 4, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 281

Indexed As: Zhuo v. 1472359 Ontario Limited

1This Application was scheduled for hearing in July 2014 for two days. On January 13, 2014, the respondent sought re-scheduling on the basis that its representative would be out of the country for the first two weeks of July 2014. The respondent had attempted to arrange alternate dates with the applicant but was unable to do so. Failing to come to any understanding with the applicant, the respondent requested that the hearing be set for dates in late September 2014 or later.

2On January 11, 2014, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal asking the hearing date be expedited to a date prior to April 30, 2014, and if such a date is not available another date prior to the previously scheduled dates in July. The applicant states that she is experiencing a family emergency and is making arrangement to go overseas to assist with the care of her father. The applicant states further that her father’s current 24 hour per day care arrangements may not be available to her after April 30, 2014.

3In response the respondent states that it is not available in April because its representative is busy and it is a busy time for the respondent.

4In response to the respondent’s assertion that it was not available in April but could be available in September, the applicant advised that she needed to leave the country before June to attend to her father who is seriously ill and in need of significant care now being provided by the applicant’s sister, who must return to Canada soon.

5On February 24, 2014, the Tribunal requested the respondents’ availability in May and June 2014. The respondent’s representative offered her available dates but indicated that the respondent is unavailable due to seasonal requirements of the business which carry through to the end of June 2014.

6In the circumstances the Tribunal will schedule this hearing on two of the dates that the respondent has indicated their counsel is available in their correspondence of February 26, 2014. I note that the respondent does not question the applicant’s assertion that the basis for her request that the hearing date be moved up is a Code-related need. On the other hand the basis for the respondent’s request is a general assertion that it is a busy time for the business. Assuming without deciding that the applicant’s claim of a need for Code-related accommodation is valid, it must take precedence over that appears to be a preference of the respondent.

7The Tribunal makes the following Directions:

a. The applicant is directed to confirm her availability within seven days of this Direction on two dates in May and/or June noting that the respondent has provided dates its counsel is not available during this period.

b. The Tribunal will re-schedule the hearing of this case to two of the dates mutually agreeable to the parties.

8I am not seized.