Sokolowska v. Nexonia Inc., 2015 HRTO 164

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Izabella Sokolowska

Applicant

-and-

Nexonia Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: February 4, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 164

Indexed as: Sokolowska v. Nexonia Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Izabella Sokolowska, Applicant

Self-represented

Nexonia Inc., Respondent

Neil Wainwright, Representative

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn and reschedule the hearing.

2On April 7, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation to the parties, which informed them that the mediation was scheduled for July 21, 2014. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments (the “Practice Direction”). The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a mediation or hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

3On July 17, 2014, which was four days before the mediation, the applicant sent an email to the respondent and the Tribunal, which stated that she would not be able to attend the mediation. She did not identify the reason why she was unable to attend.

4On July 18, 2014, the Tribunal sent an email to the parties, which stated that

At this late stage, mediations are only rescheduled based on exceptional circumstances. As the applicant has not cited an exceptional circumstance and has indicated that she is unable to attend on July 21, the mediation is cancelled and the application will be placed in the queue to be scheduled for a hearing.

5On September 15, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2015. Again, the Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Practice Direction.

6The Notice also set out the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses. Rule 16 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a list and copy of all documents that it intends to rely on, no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing. Rule 17 requires each party to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list and brief statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness no later than 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing. In accordance with the Notice and Rules 16 and 17, the parties were required to disclose to each other and file with the Tribunal all the documents that they intend to rely on, a witness list and witness statements by no later than December 23, 2014. The respondent complied with Rules 16 and 17, but the applicant did not.

7On February 2, 2015, at 9:05 PM, the applicant sent the respondent and the Tribunal an email, which requested that the hearing be rescheduled for the following reason:

I have some potential business travel that would interfere with this date and since it is crucial to my role within the company, if it is decided that I need to travel I will have little choice in the matter.

8On February 3, 2015, the respondent sent the Tribunal and the applicant an email, which opposed the applicant’s request because it was not made within 14 days of receiving the September 15, 2014 Notice of Hearing; it was made only three days before the hearing; the respondent had to move the schedules of its team around to accommodate the hearing; business travel is not a valid reason for rescheduling the hearing, given that the Notice of Hearing was issued on September 15, 2014; and the process before the Tribunal is stressful for the respondent.

9The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five days [now 14 days] after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

10In my view, the applicant’s vague statement that she has “potential business travel” does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance which justifies adjourning and rescheduling the hearing. After receiving the Notice of Hearing, the applicant had 14 days to request a rescheduling of the hearing if she was unable to attend for personal or business reasons. She did not do so. After the 14-day rescheduling period, as the respondent did, she was expected to arrange her personal and business affairs in such a manner that they would not interfere with her attendance at the hearing. She does not appear to have done so. I would also note that she has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules on disclosure of documents and witnesses, and made her request only three days before the start of the hearing. I have further noted that she also backed out of attending a scheduled mediation on very short notice.

11Accordingly, the applicant’s request to adjourn and reschedule the hearing is denied. The applicant is directed to inform the Tribunal and the respondent by no later than 12:00 Noon tomorrow (Thursday, February 5, 2015) whether she will be attending the hearing. If she informs the Tribunal and the respondent that she will not be attending the hearing, or fails to comply with this direction, the Application will be dismissed. If she informs the Tribunal and the respondent that she will be attending the hearing, it will proceed as scheduled, but I may limit the evidence that she will be permitted to present because of her failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules on disclosure of documents and witnesses.