Scott v. Marylon Hall, 2017 HRTO 1107

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Andrine Scott

Applicant

-and-

Marylon Hall

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky

Date: August 28, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1107

Indexed as: Scott v. Marylon Hall

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on September 12, 2016, alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex.

2On April 26, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing confirming that the hearing would take place on August 23, 2017.

3The applicant failed to attend the hearing. For the reasons that follow, I dismissed the Application as abandoned at the hearing and this Decision confirms that ruling.

BACKGROUND

4On August 17, 2017, approximately a week before the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment on the basis that she had "sought out legal counsel and they need the time to prepare for the hearing." The applicant also stated that she was "still trying to find transportation in order to attend the hearing…." The applicant had previously indicated on August 8, 2017 that she was "trying to find the funds to attend the hearing…." The respondent opposed the applicant's request.

5On August 18, 2017, I issued Interim Decision, 2017 HRTO 1085, denying the applicant's request as follows:

It is not clear from the applicant's request that she has, in fact, retained counsel. The applicant simply states that she has "sought out" new counsel and "they" need time to prepare. The applicant does not provide the name or contact information of the new counsel. The applicant has also suggested that she may not be able to attend the hearing for other reasons, namely, finding "funds" or "transportation" to attend the hearing.

Even if the applicant has retained new counsel, and even if this is, in fact, the reason for her request, given the noted Practice Direction and case law, this is not a sufficient basis for granting an adjournment.

6On August 21, 2017, two days before the hearing, the applicant asked that the Tribunal provide a "separate room" at the hearing for her husband, daughter and "our driver." The Tribunal advised that this would be provided.

7On August 22, 2017, the day prior to the hearing, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she had tried to arrange transportation to attend the hearing through several individuals, but had been unsuccessful. She asked the Tribunal about the possibility of an adjournment. She also asked about the possibility of participating in the hearing by way of teleconference. The respondent opposed the applicant's requests. On my instructions, the Tribunal advised the parties that the hearing would "proceed as scheduled" and that "further details regarding [this] decision [would] follow."

8The applicant then advised that she "did have a ride originally… [but that] that individual[']s services were needed somewhere else" and that she "would like to attend the hearing [but]…simply cannot due to my constraints."

9On the morning of the hearing, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she would not be able to attend the hearing.

10The respondent attended the hearing. Given the applicant's advice to the Tribunal that she would not be attending the hearing, I dismissed the Application as abandoned. The respondent sought its costs of the proceeding.

FINDINGS

11As indicated in the Interim Decision, under the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediation, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments, adjournments will only be granted in "extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative." I was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated "exceptional circumstances" justifying an adjournment. Nor was I prepared to allow the applicant to participate by way of teleconference.

12The applicant had ample notice of the hearing and ought to have arranged for transportation well in advance, failing which she should have requested an adjournment on this basis well ahead of the hearing, as she had done with her initial adjournment request.

13I was not satisfied that the applicant had, in fact, been unable to arrange for transportation, given her request two days prior to the hearing for a separate room for her family and their driver.

14Given her advice to the Tribunal the day before the hearing that she had, in general, been unable to arrange for transportation, I did not accept the applicant's subsequent suggestion that the person with whom she had originally arranged transportation had suddenly become unavailable. I note, in this regard, that, as with her initial adjournment request, the applicant neither stated that the intended driver had, in fact, suddenly become available nor provided details of the driver's situation.

15I was also not prepared to allow the applicant to participate by way of teleconference given the important issues of credibility in this case, and the respondent's right to properly and effectively cross-examine her.

16The hearing, therefore, proceeded as scheduled and the applicant failed to attend. In the circumstances, I dismissed the Application as abandoned.

17The respondent requested its costs of the proceeding. However, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to award costs. See, for example, Moore v. Ferro & Company, 2017 HRTO 5. The respondent's request is denied.

ORDER

18The application is dismissed as abandoned.

19The respondent's request for costs is denied.