Petrovic v. TST Overland Express

Petrovic v. TST Overland Express

Because the respondent repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure and scheduling deadlines, failed to attend case management conferences and did not provide hearing availability, the respondent's omissions constituted undue delay and justified the Tribunal exercising its discretion to proceed to set down a hearing and make directions to arrange the hearing without further canvassing the non‑participating party.

Citation
2019 CHRT 48
Parties
Complainant: Goran Petrovic; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: TST Overland Express
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Human Rights CHRT / Ruling on Motion to Set Hearing Date
Outcome
Motion allowed in part; Tribunal ordered steps to schedule hearing and to notify parties
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, National or Ethnic Origin Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Delay and Procedural Default, Tribunal Procedure and Case Management
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Disability Discrimination National or Ethnic Origin Discrimination Race Discrimination Delay and Procedural Default Tribunal Procedure and Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goran Petrovic

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

TST Overland Express

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights CHRT / Ruling on Motion to Set Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's failure to participate and comply with deadlines constituted undue delay and waiver of procedural rights
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal may set down hearing dates without canvassing the availability of a non‑participating party
  3. 3 Whether fairness requires the Tribunal to proceed to set a hearing date despite lack of respondent participation

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure and scheduling deadlines, failed to attend case management conferences and did not provide hearing availability, the respondent's omissions constituted undue delay and justified the Tribunal exercising its discretion to proceed to set down a hearing and make directions to arrange the hearing without further canvassing the non‑participating party.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part; Tribunal ordered steps to schedule hearing and to notify parties

Orders

  • The Tribunal Registry will ask the Complainant and the Commission for their earliest availability dates for a hearing on this matter.
  • The Complainant will advise the Tribunal Registry of the estimated number of days required to hold the hearing and the location of the hearing in order for logistical arrangements to be made.