Codrin v. Commissionaires Great Lakes, 2015 HRTO 456

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mihai Codrin Applicant

-and-

Commissionaires Great Lakes Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: April 8, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 456 Indexed as: Codrin v. Commissionaires Great Lakes

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mihai Codrin, Applicant Mindy Noble, Counsel

Commissionaires Great Lakes, Respondent Phillip Fearon, Representative

1This matter is scheduled for a two-day hearing in Toronto on April 21 and 22, 2015.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s request to reschedule the hearing and the applicant’s request for an order that his doctor be permitted to testify by teleconference.

Adjournment request denied

3On March 10, 2015 the respondent wrote to the applicant and the Tribunal requesting that the hearing be rescheduled. The respondent explained that one of its key witnesses would be out of province in White Horse YT at the time of the hearing. According to the respondent, “the witness allocated time for the Hearing however put an incorrect date in their schedule and subsequently booked travel time believing it was well after the Hearing timeframe”. The applicant objects to the request to adjourn.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides:

Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment for 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.

5The respondent’s request for an adjournment is denied. The Tribunal will not reschedule the hearing. I am not satisfied that the unavailability of the witness because he will be out of province is an extraordinary circumstance that warrants an adjournment or rescheduling of the hearing at this late stage. The Tribunal has held that the unavailability of witnesses who will be out of town on the date of the hearing is not an extraordinary circumstance that warrants an adjournment of a hearing. (See, for example Iqbal v. Inscape Corporation, 2009 HRTO 934; Shannon v. Renfrew (County), 2011 HRTO 934; Silk v. Matthews 2012 HRTO 37).

6The parties should arrive at the hearing prepared to proceed. If the respondent’s proposed witness is not present on April 21 and/or 22, 2015, the respondent must be prepared to make oral submissions regarding why the evidence of the proposed witness is necessary and whether it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to hold an additional day of hearing.

The Request to Hear the Doctor’s Testimony by Teleconference is Granted

7Rule 3.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may conduct hearings in person, in writing, by telephone, or by other electronic means, as it considers appropriate.

8The Tribunal has allowed witnesses to testify by telephone conference in certain circumstances depending on the nature and extent of the evidence. Generally, the Tribunal has not allowed testimony by teleconference where the credibility of the witness is a significant issue or where the witness’ evidence is extensive or key to the proceeding. See, for example, Zeividavi v. Catholic Immigration Services, 2011 HRTO 406.

9In this case, based on the material filed, I grant the request to permit the applicant’s doctor to testify by teleconference. In my view, the doctor’s credibility is not a significant issue in the case and the assessment of his credibility will not be substantially affected if he testifies by teleconference. It would appear that the respondent is not calling conflicting evidence related to the doctor’s proposed evidence. Thus, this is not a case where it may be critical to have a witness present in person in order to assess the credibility of the witness as against another witness offering conflicting testimony. Furthermore, the doctor’s evidence does not appear to be extensive. I note that the respondent has received the material regarding the request and has not raised any objection to the applicant’s request.

10In summary, having regard to all of these circumstances, I am of the view that there is little, if any, prejudice to receipt of the doctor’s evidence by teleconference.

11The applicant has indicated that the doctor is available to take the teleconference call from 11:00 am. - 11:30 am. on April 22, 2015. The Registrar shall advise the parties of the call-in information for the teleconference call for that time.

12Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of April, 2015.