Bahen v. Peppermill, 2009 HRTO 1184

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carolyn Bahen

Applicant

-and-

Peppermill and Albert Sommer

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: July 31, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1184

Indexed as: Bahen v. Peppermill

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on September 3, 2008, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex and threat of reprisal. The respondents filed a Response on November 24, 2008. The hearing was initially set down for June 22, 2009. On June 19, 2009, I granted an adjournment request that the respondents had attempted to file in April but was not received by the Tribunal. A new hearing date was set for August 24, 2009.

2On July 23, 2009, the Tribunal received a further adjournment request from the respondents. The personal respondent states that he must travel abroad to tend to a seriously ill brother and does not anticipate returning until the end of August.

3Adjournment requests are not granted automatically and will only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances. Where a party seeks an adjournment, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises and, if practicable, they should contact the other party to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates. There is no indication that the respondent sought the applicant’s consent to a further adjournment.

4In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it… The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used… The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances. [emphasis added]

5The respondents’ request cites exigent personal circumstances. A medical emergency involving a close family member is an exceptional situation. Notwithstanding the history of delay in this matter and the previous adjournment already granted, the respondents’ request is granted. The respondents have not indicated a date on which the personal respondent expects to return to Canada other than “the end of August”, nor have they suggested alternative dates on which they are available.

6The Registrar shall re-schedule the one-day hearing for as early as possible in September. This date shall be peremptory to the respondents, meaning that no further adjournment requests will be granted. Should there be any dates in September on which the respondents are not available, they must advise the Tribunal within five days of this Interim Decision.