Watters v. Creative Minds Childrens Services LTO Daycare, 2014 HRTO 969

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kelsey Ann Watters Applicant

-and-

Creative Minds Childrens Services LTO Daycare Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: July 3, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 969 Indexed as: Watters v. Creative Minds Childrens Services LTO Daycare

APPEARANCES

Kelsey Ann Watters, Applicant Self-represented

Creative Minds Childrens Services LTO Daycare, Respondent No one appearing

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex. The hearing in this matter was scheduled for July 3 and 4, 2014 in Hamilton, Ontario. The hearing dates were set by way of a Notice of Hearing, dated February 10, 2014.

2On July 3, 2014, two hours before the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Tribunal received an email from Vicki McNabb on behalf of the respondent business, indicating that she had sent an email to the applicant explaining why the respondent business could not be at the hearing, that she had sought unsuccessfully to adjourn the hearing on two occasions in June, 2014, that she would like to “resolve this issue as soon as possible” and that she apologized for not attending the hearing despite both adjournment requests having been denied.

3The Tribunal did receive two adjournment requests from Ms. McNabb on behalf of the respondent business on May 21, 2014 and June 23, 2014. In both requests, the respondent indicated that it ran a daycare business, that an adequate staffing ratio had to be maintained and that staffing shortages on the dates in question were the reason for the adjournment requests. In one of the requests, the respondent said two staff members were going to be off work recovering from medical procedures. The Tribunal denied the first adjournment request on June 10, 2014 (2014 HRTO 860). The second request was also denied and the decision was communicated to the parties by the Registrar, with an indication that reasons would follow.

4The respondent business has been aware of the hearing dates since February 2014. Its failure to take steps at some time over the four months that it had to do so to ensure that adequate staff coverage was in place to permit it to carry on operating its business during the hearing dates does not constitute “exceptional circumstances” that would justify its requests for adjournments on the eve of the hearing.

5Despite the denials of the adjournment requests by the Tribunal, both of which were communicated to the parties well in advance of the hearing dates, the respondent business failed to attend on the first date of hearing, failed to send a representative on its behalf and, instead, sent the email described above. The applicant, her witnesses and representative were all in attendance and ready to proceed with the hearing. The applicant and her witnesses have all lost time off work and have had to make childcare arrangements in order to attend the proceedings.

6In the circumstances, the Tribunal adjourned the two hearing dates. Two additional hearing dates will be set as soon as possible, with the dates being peremptory to the respondent.