Daniela Stor v. Randstad Holding N.V., 2015 HRTO 963

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniela Stor

Applicant

-and-

Randstad Holding N.V.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: July 21, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 963

Indexed as: Stor v. Randstad Holding N.V.

1The Tribunal convened a summary hearing by teleconference on March 14, 2014 at the request of the respondent to address the issue of the applicant’s delay in filing her Application. On July 25, 2014 the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis of delay.

2The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration on August 25, 2014 on the basis that the Tribunal failed to address the applicant’s statement in the summary hearing that she had received incorrect legal advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre that she had two years, not one, to file her Application. In its decision issued on December 3, 2014, the Tribunal granted reconsideration of its July 25, 2014 decision.

3The reconsideration was granted for the very limited purpose of addressing whether the delay incurred by the applicant was in good faith, and if so, whether any party experienced substantial prejudice because of the delay. Specifically, in its decision the Tribunal indicated that:

If the applicant does not intend to call a witness and/or file documents from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to support her claim that she received the legal advice that he limitation period was two years, not one year, to file her Application, then she must be prepared to argue why the Tribunal should not draw an adverse inference.

4On May 26, 2015 the Tribunal convened a preliminary hearing to deal with the issue of good faith. The applicant’s counsel attended the hearing but allegedly owing to medical concerns the applicant did not. Counsel for the applicant indicated that the applicant would not be calling anyone from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre or filing any documents from the Centre. The preliminary hearing was adjourned pending further direction from the Tribunal.

5In my view, it is requisite that the applicant be given an opportunity to argue why, in the circumstances, the Tribunal should not draw, an adverse inference.

6The Tribunal will schedule a half-day in-person resumption of the preliminary hearing commencing at 1:30 pm. The applicant must be prepared to testify as to why the Tribunal should not draw an adverse inference. At least 30 days before the resumption the applicant shall deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a summary of what she is expected to say in this regard.

7Applicant’s counsel indicates that the applicant has significant environmental sensitivities, including sensitivities to scents, and therefore requests hearing accommodations. The applicant shall provide the Registrar with medical documentation in support of the accommodation request. The parties can arrange a teleconference call with the Registrar to consider options for accommodations.