Deschenes v. White Spruce Apartments, 2017 HRTO 1673

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Anne Deschenes Applicant

-and-

White Spruce Apartments and Girts Sipolins Respondents

Decision

Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe Date: December 18, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1673 Indexed as: Deschenes v. White Spruce Apartments

Appearances

Anne Deschenes, Applicant No one appearing

White Spruce Apartments and Girts Sipolins, Respondents Samara Belitzky, Counsel

Background

1The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on February 3, 2016.

2On August 22, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties confirming that the hearing of the Application would take place on December 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in person. The Notice was emailed to the email address that the applicant provided to the Tribunal as her address for email delivery; this is also the email address through which she has communicated with the Tribunal. The Notice was not returned as undeliverable.

3On November 17, 2017, I convened a case management call for the parties, during which I confirmed that the applicant was aware of the hearing date. On the call, the applicant inquired about how the Tribunal would proceed on the hearing date in the event of her illness. I advised her that she would be required to provide a medical note that supported that she was incapable of attending the hearing due to illness. I advised her that the note would need to be detailed, and specific, and that she should refer to my earlier Interim Decision, 2017 HRTO 1508, as well as the Case Assessment Directions (“CADs”) the Tribunal sent to her in 2016 and 2017, for information regarding medical notes.

Request for an Adjournment and Electronic Hearing

4At approximately 2:00 p.m. on December 13, 2017, the applicant contacted the Tribunal and sought to adjourn the hearing due to illness. Her correspondence included a medical note. The note did not outline the applicant’s specific limitations, or provide medical evidence as to any barriers that she has with respect to appearing in person. The medical note did not address whether or how these barriers could be accommodated in the hearing process. As such I denied her request to adjourn the hearing.

5At approximately 5:45 p.m., the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and renewed her adjournment request, and also sought to convert the in-person hearing to a teleconference or video conference hearing. Given the timing of the request, I determined that the issue would be dealt with at the hearing.

6The applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing on December 14, 2017. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

7At 10:00 a.m. neither the applicant nor any of her witnesses were in attendance at the hearing. I asked the respondents for their submissions on how the hearing should proceed. The respondents submitted that the hearing should not proceed electronically given the hundreds of pages worth of documents that the applicant filed; they asserted that it would be difficult to manage the hearing process given the volume. In addition, they noted that the Tribunal already determined that an in-person hearing was necessary, and that credibility is a live issue in this Application. The respondents submitted that in any event the Application should be dismissed as abandoned.

Analysis

8As described in 2016 HRTO 734, the applicant has made a number of requests to extend time to file documents and adjournment proceedings. Further, I have issued two CADs in which I have addressed the applicant’s requests to extend time to file documents; each request was made on the eve of a deadline for filing a submission.

9As noted in the Practice Direction Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. The applicant has not provided sufficient medical evidence to support her need for an adjournment. See Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, and Biondic v. Intact Financial Corporation (formerly ING Canada), 2013 HRTO 1613. She has not demonstrated that extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist to warrant an adjournment of the hearing.

10The applicant also did not provide medical evidence to support her need for an electronic hearing. To that end, she did not attend the hearing to make submissions on any issue, nor did she send a representative to make them on her behalf. The Application pertains to numerous alleged breaches of minutes of settlement. Given the nature and scope of the applicant’s assertions, her credibility is an issue in this case. Consequently, her attendance in person at the hearing was required, subject to an accommodation-based need to attend electronically. The applicant provided no accommodation-based, or other reasonable evidence-based, reason for her need for an electronic hearing. As such, she failed to attend the hearing without sufficient justification.

Order

11In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed on the basis that the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.