Tom LaFortune v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals Corporation, 2009 HRTO 1036

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Tom LaFortune Applicant

-and-

Washington Mills Electro Minerals Corporation Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: July 14, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1036 Indexed as: LaFortune v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals

1A Case Resolution Conference (“CRC”) in this matter is scheduled to continue on July 28, 2009 for the purpose of hearing the parties’ submissions on remedy. The hearing was scheduled by Notice from the Tribunal dated June 17, 2009. The continuation date was set with the consent of the applicant and the respondent. This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request to adjourn the July 28, 2009 hearing date.

2On June 15, 2009, the respondent’s counsel requested production of documents from the applicant for the period March 2005 to April 30, 2009.

3On June 25, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction regarding the respondent’s request for production. The Tribunal ruled that the hearing on July 28, 2009 would deal with the applicant’s entitlement to special damages, including lost wages, for the period of November 7, 2004 to late November 2004, the date he obtained new employment. The hearing will also deal with the applicant’s entitlement to general damages. The Case Assessment Direction advised the parties that the Tribunal will hear the parties’ submissions as to whether the applicant is entitled to lost wages beyond the end of November 2004, but no further production was ordered at that time.

4The respondent’s counsel wrote to the Tribunal on July 6, 2009 seeking to adjourn the hearing scheduled for July 28, 2009 on the basis that she was scheduled to attend a full-day examination for discovery on that date and because her request for production was outstanding.

5The applicant has objected to the request for an adjournment.

6While the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments does not specifically apply to Transition Applications, nonetheless the principles set out in this Information Bulletin are equally applicable to Transition Applications.

7The Tribunal’s Information Bulletin provides that requests to reschedule must be made within five (5) days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Information Bulletin states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

Requests for adjournment, particularly last minute requests for adjournments are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice.

The Tribunal’s approach to scheduling and rescheduling mediations and hearings is designed to give the parties a fair opportunity to find suitable dates. Therefore, the Tribunal discourages adjournment requests, and will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative.

The Tribunal will not automatically grant adjournments even when all parties consent. Consent of all parties will be a factor which the Tribunal will consider where a request to adjourn a mediation or hearing is made, but it is not the only, or even the main factor.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. If practical, they should contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternate dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing. Alternate dates for mediation must fall within five (5) months of the date of the Notice of Application. Alternative dates for a hearing must fall within five (5) months of the date of the Confirmation of Hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the reason for the request and the alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by telephone or email.

The Tribunal typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal”. The Tribunal encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard. Where parties believe they may be able to resolve a matter shortly before the scheduled hearing, they should advise the Registrar and the Tribunal will make a mediator and mediation room available. However, the Tribunal discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement.

8The reasons for the Request do not constitute exceptional circumstances that would permit an adjournment. The respondent has known since June 17, 2009 that the continuation of the hearing was scheduled for July 28, 2009. This date was set on the consent of the respondent. It is inevitable that the scheduling of hearing days will create some degree of conflict with work in many cases. This is simply part of the adjudication process and does not constitute the kind of exceptional circumstances that would warrant granting an adjournment request of this nature.

9The respondent’s production request of June 15, 2009 has been ruled on. The applicant is not required to produce documents for the time period March 2005 to April 30, 2009 at this time. The Tribunal will hear submissions from the parties on July 28, 2009 as to whether the applicant is entitled to special damages for the time period after he obtained new employment at the end of November 2004.

10The request for adjournment is denied.