Batchelor v. Woodbridge Foam Corp., 2016 HRTO 1651

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Blossom Batchelor

Applicant

-and-

Woodbridge Foam Corp. and Bill O’Brien

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: December 21, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1651 Indexed as: Batchelor v. Woodbridge Foam Corp.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Blossom Batchelor, Applicant Self-represented

Woodbridge Foam Corp. and Bill O’Brien, Respondents Matthew Demeo, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment and with respect to membership in a vocational association because of race, colour and reprisal.

2By Case Assessment Direction dated November 21, 2016, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held by teleconference to determine whether the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal has not yet scheduled the hearing date.

3In a letter dated November 28, 2016, the applicant requested that the Tribunal conduct the hearing in writing instead of orally. The applicant submitted that she cannot afford legal representation and lacks the education, experience and knowledge of the law to participate meaningfully in an oral hearing. The applicant submitted that she would be unable to respond to verbal submissions and could not respond to any issues that may emerge during the hearing without a great deal of preparation.

4The respondents replied to the applicant’s request in a letter dated December 5, 2016. The respondents oppose the applicant’s request. The respondents cited section 43(2)1 of the Code, which provides as follows:

An application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions in accordance with the rules.

The respondents also noted that this requirement is reflected in Rule 3.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, as follows:

The Tribunal may conduct hearings in person, in writing, by telephone, or by other electronic means, as it considers appropriate. However, no Application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal will be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions in accordance with these Rules.

5The respondents submitted that the outcome of the summary hearing may be to finally dispose of the Application by dismissing it. The respondents submitted that, accordingly, holding the summary hearing in writing would contravene both section 43(2)1 of the Code and Rule 3.5.

Analysis and Decision

6As the respondent noted, s. 43(2) of the Code and Rule 3.5 provide that an Application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions. A potential outcome of the summary hearing is that the Tribunal will dismiss the Application, which would be to finally dispose of it. Although the applicant is willing to waive her right in this regard, the respondents are not. In these circumstances, the applicant’s request cannot be granted.

7I would note for the applicant’s benefit that the parties are not restricted to making oral arguments. Rather, the parties may, and often do, also prepare written submissions in advance of the summary hearing to address the issues described in the Case Assessment Direction. As the Tribunal has yet to schedule the summary hearing, there is ample time to draft such submissions. Should the applicant wish to rely upon written submissions, she must file them with the Tribunal and deliver them to the respondents in accordance with the deadlines set in the Case Assessment Direction.

Order

8The request for a written hearing is denied.

9I am not seized.