Katherine Lin v. Jin Cheng, 2016 HRTO 1060

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

Jin Cheng

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

IAVGO Community Legal Clinic, Mary Dinucei, and Antony Singleton

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

Ombudsman Ontario, Sue Haslam, and Wendy Ray

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Katherine Lin

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Fair Practices Commission, Landlord and Tenant Board, Elizabeth Witmer, Tom Irvine, Han Dong, Gobinder Randhawa, Claudette Leslie, and Vincent Ching

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: August 10, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1060

Indexed as: Lin v. Cheng

1On June 2, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which directed the parties to attend a half-day summary hearing by teleconference.

2The applicant subsequently requested that the summary hearing take place in-person or in writing for a number of reasons, including one of the respondents does not speak English, to avoid making a mess, to save time and be more efficient, to avoid problems with the telephone or internet connection, and to make it easier for the adjudicator to get the job done properly.

3I disagree. As per the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Request, the standard practice is to hold a summary hearing by teleconference. None of the reasons provided by the applicant are explained in any detail, and I do not see any compelling reason why the summary hearing should take place in-person or in writing rather than by teleconference.

4Accordingly, the applicant’s request that the summary hearing take place in-person or in writing is denied. The summary hearing will proceed by teleconference.