Rachel Weasner v. St. John Ambulance Council of Ontario, 2017 HRTO 1150

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rachel Weasner

Applicant

-and-

St. John Ambulance Council of Ontario

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe

Date: September 6, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1150

Indexed as: Weasner v. St. John Ambulance Council of Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rachel Weasner, Applicant

Self-represented

St. John Ambulance Council of Ontario, Respondent

Jessica DiFrederico, Counsel

1This Application alleged a contravention of settlement contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2The hearing was scheduled for August 9, 2017; however, the applicant requested that the Tribunal adjourn the hearing. On August 4, 2017, the Tribunal determined that the hearing would be adjourned, with written reasons to follow.

3On July 26, 2017, the applicant asserted that she did not receive a Tribunal letter related to her hearing obligations. The correspondence was issued on May 3, 2017, and it reads as follows:

The parties will deliver and file all arguably relevant documents upon which they intend to rely, witness lists and detailed summation of their expected testimony, if any, no later than 21 days before the scheduled date of the hearing.

4The correspondence was emailed to the email address that the applicant listed in the Application, and was not returned to the Tribunal as undeliverable. The applicant did not file any documents, witness lists, or will-say statements by July 14, 2017.

5On July 14, 2017, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal and inquired whether the applicant intended to provide the documents outlined in the May 3, 2017 correspondence. On July 19, 2017, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and asked her to confirm whether she intended to provide any of the documents, if so, to file them by July 24, 2017. The applicant provided one document to the Tribunal and parties on July 26, 2017. By correspondence dated July 31, 2017, the Tribunal granted the applicant further time to provide the documents; she was given until August 2, 2017 to do so. The applicant wrote to the Tribunal to advise that she did not receive the May 3, 2017 letter.

6The respondent objected to the applicant’s adjournment request. It submitted that the hearing should continue as scheduled, and that the applicant could rely upon the documents that were already filed by the parties.

findings

7I am persuaded that it was appropriate to grant an adjournment in the above circumstances; to that end, it appears that the applicant did not receive the May 3, 2017 letter. Further, her submissions demonstrated that once she became aware of her disclosure obligations, she was confused about the nature and scope of those obligations. The applicant also made reference to a need for accommodation in the hearing process. I was concerned that, despite the late notification of accommodation needs, the Tribunal have an adequate opportunity to address those and put appropriate accommodations in place prior to the hearing. Given the Tribunal’s mandate to ensure fair access to justice, the request to adjourn was appropriate.

order and direction

8For the above reasons, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing of the Application was granted.

9The hearing will be rescheduled to a date to be set by the Tribunal.

10Within 7 days of the date of this decision, the applicant is directed to notify the Registrar of any accommodation needs she may require for the hearing process.

11I am not seized of this matter.