Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
3072-09-PE Saydat Hospitality Inc., operating as Comfort Inn Motel (Welland), Applicant v. 2059419 Ontario Inc., Beverly Pottle, Lynda Raby, Rose Smith, Marion Fisher, Janice Reed, Barbara Kurica, Marija Raic, Amanda St. George (Culp), Elizabeth Dolomont, Hazel Scott, Respondents.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair, Margaret Kvetan and Pauline R. Seville, Members.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: June 30, 2010
[1]. This is an application filed by Saydat Hospitality operating as Comfort Inn Motel (Welland) (“Saydat”) seeking an Order varying the Orders of Beverly J. Dalys, Review Officer, dated December 17, 2009 as amended by Order dated January 4, 2010 (the “Order”). The application was filed on January 15, 2010.
[2]. The Tribunal notes that it has also received correspondence dated January 18, 2010 (attached) from Barbara Kurica, one of the respondents to this application. It appears from a review of Ms. Kurica’s correspondence that she is not responding to the present application, but rather is herself seeking a variance of the Order for different reasons than the applicant. In the event that Ms. Kurica wishes to pursue such an application for variance, she must submit a request for a hearing to the Tribunal on the appropriate form and in the manner set out in the Tribunals’ Rules of Practice (the “Rules”).
[3]. A Pre-hearing Conference was held in this matter on March 22, 2010, at which time only the applicant attended. The applicant has since also filed additional submissions in support of its request that the Order be varied. In view of the failure of any other parties to attend the Pre-hearing Conference, the applicant takes the position that the other parties are not entitled to further notice of the hearing or any other steps in the proceeding pursuant to Rule 43 of the Rules. The applicant also suggested that the application could be dealt with by written hearing given that the application raises only a legal issue.
[4]. Rule 43 reads as follows:
- The Tribunal may direct that a party which fails to attend a Pre-hearing Conference after receiving proper notice and without an explanation acceptable to the Tribunal:
(i) is not entitled to further notice of the hearing or any other steps in the proceeding;
(ii) will not be permitted to request an adjournment of the hearing except on consent or in a true emergency.
The Tribunal therefore has the discretion in appropriate circumstances to direct that a party which fails to attend a Pre-hearing Conference is not entitled to further notice of the hearing or any other steps in the proceeding. The Tribunal does not however find it appropriate to make such a direction in the circumstances of this case given the relatively small number of respondents involved in this proceeding. The Tribunal instead finds it appropriate to continue to give the respondents notice of this proceeding despite their failure to attend the Pre-hearing Conference on March 22, 2010.
[5]. The Tribunal is also not persuaded that it is appropriate to conduct this proceeding as a written hearing given the novelty of the issue raised in the application.
[6]. This application is accordingly hereby referred to the Registrar to list for one day of hearing.
Dated at Toronto this 30th day of June, 2010.
“Caroline Rowan”
Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair
“Margaret Kvetan”
Margaret Kvetan, Member
“Pauline R. Seville ”
Pauline R. Seville, Member