Robin Royeton v. Toronto District School Board, 2016 HRTO 644

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robin Royeton

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Sir Robert L. Borden Business & Technical Institute, Andrea Alimi and Anthony Hack

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 12, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 644

Indexed as: Royeton v. Toronto District School Board

APPEARANCES

Robin Royeton, Applicant

Cecil Norman, Representative

Toronto District School Board, Sir Robert L. Borden Business & Technical Institute, Andrea Alimi, Anthony Hack, Respondents

Lauri Reesor, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Reconsideration Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2016 HRTO 368. This Decision dismissed the Application on the basis that the applicant had abandoned her Application. Although the respondents were not asked by the Tribunal to file a Response to the Request for Reconsideration, they filed submissions shortly after receiving the applicant’s Request.

Decision

2This Application was filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 27, 2014. The Application was scheduled to be heard by the Tribunal on August 24 and 25, 2015. On August 20, 2015, the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing dates, based on medical reasons, which was granted by the Tribunal.

3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), dated August 27, 2015, the Tribunal directed the applicant to contact the respondents and the Tribunal by no later than October 26, 2015 to request that this matter be rescheduled, or to deliver and file a further request for an adjournment. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicant did not contact the Tribunal by that date, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

4On October 15, 2015, the applicant delivered and filed a further request for an adjournment for medical reasons, which was granted by the Tribunal. In a CAD dated November 20, 2015, the Tribunal directed that the applicant contact the respondents and the Tribunal by no later than January 15, 2016 to request that this matter be rescheduled, or to request a further adjournment. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicant did not contact the Tribunal by no later than January 15, 2016, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

5The applicant did not comply with the above term to contact the respondents and Tribunal to request either that this matter be rescheduled or adjourned. Instead, the respondent received a note, dated December 7, 2015, which was faxed directly from the applicant’s doctor’s office, saying that the applicant was unable to provide her evidence verbally, but perhaps could proceed by way of written documentation in lieu of verbal testimony.

6Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, this letter was not provided to the Tribunal. Counsel for the respondent sent an email to the applicant’s representative, Cecil Norman, on December 9, 2015, which said:

We confirm our receipt today, December 7, 2015, of the attached medical note from Dr. Sheps which suggests that Ms. Royeton cannot testify at any time in the foreseeable future. As the medical note was not accompanied by correspondence from your office it is unclear what position you and your client are taking with respect to the Tribunal proceeding (or whether you are providing this to the Tribunal). Please confirm your position at your earliest opportunity so that we may respond. We note, however, that we disagree that the Tribunal matter can proceed on the basis of documentation alone. Your client has made very serious allegations against the Board and its employees which it has a right to answer and test via cross examination. It would be fundamentally unfair and prejudicial to the Board's defence of this Application if it were prevented from testing the evidence of your client on cross examination. It will be the Board's position that this matter ought not proceed to hearing unless the Applicant can testify.

We look forward to hearing from you shortly respecting your position regarding whether this Application can proceed at all.

7The respondents state that they received no response to this letter. Likewise, the Tribunal’s records show that it did not receive either the doctor’s note or anything from the applicant setting out her position on this.

8Its records also show, contrary to submissions made by the applicant’s representative, that neither the applicant nor her representative has requested status updates from Tribunal staff in the period following the November 20, 2015 CAD. That is, there is nothing on the Tribunal’s file or in its electronic records which show that the applicant and/or her representative communicated with the Tribunal in the period leading up to the dismissal of her Application.

9Having said that, the Tribunal dismissed the Application on the basis that it had been abandoned. While the applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s November 20, 2015 direction, she did seek medical confirmation with respect to her ability to participate in the hearing. This is sufficient to demonstrate to me that she did not intend to abandon her Application. The reconsideration request is, therefore, granted.

10The applicant must, however, respond to the respondent’s December 9, 2015 email with respect to how or if she wishes to proceed. These must be detailed submissions that address the respondent’s clear objections to proceeding on the basis of written documentation if, in fact, that is how the applicant wishes to proceed. Moreover, these submissions must be responsive to the direction in the November 20, 2015 CAD that the applicant must either request that this matter be rescheduled or request a further adjournment.

Order

11In summary, the Tribunal has made the following orders:

a. the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision, 2016 HRTO 368, dismissing her Application is granted;

b. by May 31, 2016, the applicant is required to file detailed submissions concerning her ability to proceed with a hearing, which respond, if necessary, to the issues raised in the respondent’s December 9, 2015 correspondence; and

c. these submissions must also contain whether the applicant is seeking to reschedule the hearing or is requesting an adjournment.