Bedi v. Codan (Canada) Inc., 2016 HRTO 132

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sunil Bedi

Applicant

-and-

Codan (Canada) Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price

Date: January 28, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 132

Indexed As: Bedi v. Codan (Canada) Inc.

1As the parties are aware, the hearing in respect of this Application is scheduled to take place on February 12, 2016.

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s failure to provide witness statements for his witnesses, as directed by the Tribunal, and the respondent’s request that the February 12, 2016 hearing be adjourned based on such failure.

3In a December 18, 2015 Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal reminded the parties that they were required, by no later than December 29, 2015, to provide the Tribunal and one another with the documents they intend to rely upon at the upcoming hearing, a list of their witnesses, and a brief statement summarizing what each of their witnesses will say when they testify. The applicant was also reminded that he was required to provide a witness statement for himself if he intends to give evidence at the hearing.

4On December 29, 2015, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and the respondent the names of three witnesses he intends to present at the hearing of the Application. However, the applicant did not provide witness statements for such witnesses. Nor did he provide a witness statement for himself.

5Accordingly, on December 31, 2015, the Tribunal issued a further Case Assessment Direction, directing the applicant to provide witness statements summarizing his witnesses’ anticipated testimony by no later than January 7, 2016. The December 31, 2015 Case Assessment Direction also reminded the parties that they are responsible for ensuring that their own witnesses attend the hearing to give evidence and that witness summonses are available from the Registrar’s office, if needed.

6The applicant did not provide witness statements for himself or his other proposed witnesses by the January 7, 2016 deadline.

7On January 17, 2016, the respondent requested that the February 12, 2016 hearing be adjourned. The respondent submits that the applicant’s failure to provide his witness statements, as directed, has prejudiced the respondent in its ability to prepare for the hearing, and, for this reason, the hearing should be adjourned.

8In his January 17, 2016 response, the applicant opposes the adjournment of the hearing. The applicant states that he did try to speak with his proposed witnesses, but was unable to do so.

9Although the respondent is correct that the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure require parties to exchange witness statements in advance of the hearing, it is well-established that where a party intends to testify only with respect to facts already contained in that party’s pleadings, it is sufficient for the party to simply confirm this. It is not necessary for the party to provide a witness statement that merely repeats factual allegations already contained in the pleadings.

10Thus, where, as here, the applicant has not submitted a witness statement summarizing his own anticipated testimony, the Tribunal will generally nonetheless permit the applicant to attest to facts already contained in the pleadings. However, in accordance with Rules 5.6, 5.7 and 17.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the applicant may not be permitted to give evidence on any matter not covered by the pleadings.

11Likewise, pursuant to Rule 17.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, the applicant will not be permitted to call any witness for whom he has not provided a witness statement, except with permission of the Tribunal (Rule 17.4).

12Any objections to the applicant’s evidence, based on his failure to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules or otherwise, will be dealt with at the hearing, if and when they arise. In the meantime, the respondent should prepare for the hearing based on the pleadings and any other materials that have been provided.

13In light of the above, I am not persuaded at this stage that the respondent is prejudiced in its ability to prepare for the hearing. The respondent’s adjournment request is denied and the hearing will proceed as scheduled.

14In the event that the applicant seeks to present documents or witnesses at the hearing that were not disclosed in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules, and is permitted to do so, the respondent may renew its request for an adjournment at that time if it wishes to do so.