Gray v. Bishop, 2017 HRTO 1242

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kelly Gray

Applicant

-and-

Audrey Bishop

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe

Date: September 21, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1242

Indexed as: Gray v. Bishop

APPEARANCES

Kelly Gray, Applicant

Grace Vaccarelli, Counsel

Audrey Bishop, Respondent

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request to be granted an extension on the time to meet her disclosure obligations pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.

2On April 27, 2017 the Tribunal issued the Notice of Hearing. The document outlines that the parties were expected to deliver their arguably relevant documents to each other by May 18, 2017, and send the Tribunal a statement of delivery confirming that they had done so. The respondent did not comply with this obligation as outlined in Rule 16.1.

3In addition, by August 4, 2017, the parties were required to deliver to each other, and the Tribunal the following documents:

I. A list of the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing. These are the documents that they chose to put before the tribunal from among the documents disclosed at step one by both parties; and,

II. A witness statement setting out the intended evidence of each witness.

4The respondent did not comply with these obligations.

5The Tribunal issued a case assessment direction (“CAD”) on August 24, 2017 in which it directed the respondent to provide disclosure by August 28 and September 8, 2017. The CAD warned the respondent that failure to comply with the direction could lead to her not being permitted to present evidence at the hearing. The respondent did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction.

6On September 12, 2017, the respondent contacted the Tribunal, and asked that she be permitted to participate in the hearing. Given this and another procedural consideration, the parties agreed to attempt mediation/adjudication on the September 18, 2017 hearing date.

7The parties attempted mediation/adjudication, however it did not yield a resolution of the dispute. Consequently, there was no dispute that it was appropriate to adjourn the hearing to a later date, and that the respondent’s failure to provide disclosure could be cured by her submitting documents in advance of the hearing. The respondent sought 4 to 6 weeks to provide disclosure pursuant to Rules 16 and 17. The applicant submitted that 14 to 21 days would be an appropriate period for the respondent to produce her disclosure.

order AND DIRECTION

8I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to provide the respondent with 4 to 6 weeks to deliver her disclosure; to do so could delay the hearing process. I am persuaded that it is appropriate to extend the deadline for the respondent to comply with Rules 16 and 17 as follows:

I. By no later than October 9, 2017, the respondent must deliver to the applicant her arguably relevant documents. If she has no arguably relevant documents, she must confirm this to the applicant by October 9, 2017;

II. By no later than October 16, 2017, the respondent must deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal: (1) a list and copy of the documents she intends to rely upon at the hearing; (2) a list of her witnesses; (3) a brief statement describing what her witnesses will say when they testify; and (4) the respondent must submit a witness statement for herself in which she describes what she will say in her testimony.

III. If the respondent does not comply with these directions, she may be prevented from calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence at the hearing (see Rules 16.4 and 17.4 of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure).

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