Snowball v. Halton (Regional Municipality), 2016 HRTO 61

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Snowball Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Halton Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: January 14, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 61 Indexed as: Snowball v. Halton (Regional Municipality)

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A hearing is scheduled for January 20 and 21, 2016 further to a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing dated July 8, 2015 (“the Notice”). The Notice required the parties to disclose their arguably relevant documents by June 29, 2015 and their obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”) by December 7, 2015.

3By Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1492, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s production request. The Tribunal noted that the hearing date was fast approaching and if the applicant filed a new production request she must do so well in advance of the hearing.

4The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in early December 2015, seeking extensive production from the respondent. The respondent filed a Response to the RFOP, and, on December 7, 2015, filed copies of its documentation and will-say statements of its witnesses. There are 219 tabbed documents provided.

5The applicant did not file any will-say statements of her witnesses or file any documentation with the Tribunal to comply with her Rules 16 and 17 disclosure obligations under the Tribunal’s Rules. She filed another RFOP at the end of December 2015, continuing to seek production of various documents. On January 8, 2016, the applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal, copying the respondent, seeking an adjournment of the hearing because of the production requests remain outstanding and because the respondent had not filed a Response to the RFOP.

6The respondent filed a Response to the RFOP and sent a letter opposing the adjournment request. The applicant filed a letter dated January 13, 2016, stating that the respondent’s position about the adjournment request is unreasonable in light of the outstanding requests for production.

analysis

7Rule 19.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules gives a responding party 14 days following receipt of a RFOP to deliver a Response to the RFOP.

8The applicant’s adjournment request is denied.

9The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments makes it clear that requests for adjournment will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. In these circumstances, an outstanding production request does not constitute extraordinary circumstances, particularly where the applicant herself has not complied with the December 7, 2015 deadline to file her witness statements and documentation upon which she intends to rely with the Tribunal.

10The hearing will proceed as scheduled on January 20, 2016. The applicant is directed to file her witness statements and documentation with the Tribunal immediately, with copies delivered to the respondent.

11At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal will hear the parties’ submissions about the outstanding production requests. The parties are not required to have their witnesses present on the first day. The Tribunal will also offer mediation-adjudication, in accordance with Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules, particularly given the respondent’s position that the first hearing day could be used to engage in further resolution discussions with the assistance of a Vice-chair.

12If a party requires accommodation during the hearing, they are directed to email the Tribunal, copying the other party, requesting accommodation and setting out what accommodation is required.