Peters v. Zhang, 2009 HRTO 1876

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Peters

Applicant

-and-

Tony Zhang

Respondent

a n d B E T W E E N:

Andrea Kovacs

Applicant

-and-

Tony Zhang

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: November 4, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1876

Indexed as: Peters v. Zhang

1These are two separate Applications filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), against the same respondent making allegations of discrimination in employment.

2The hearing was scheduled for three days commencing November 4, 2009. On the morning of November 3, 2009, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal, copied to the applicant Mr. Peters, requesting an adjournment. He stated that he is ill, and described his symptoms. He further stated that Telehealth Ontario had recommended that he stay home and not go out or to work until he was feeling better.

3The applicants oppose the request on the basis that they believe the respondent’s illness is a fabrication and that an adjournment would cause them substantial inconvenience and prejudice. They note that they, as well as their witnesses, have already booked off time to attend the hearing. They ask that the adjournment request be denied.

4Adjournment 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. The Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states the following regarding requests for adjournment:

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.

5The respondent’s request cites illness as the reason. This is an extraordinary circumstance that warrants an adjournment. There is no reason to believe that the respondent’s illness is fabricated, and I therefore see no reason to compel the respondent to produce medical documentation at this time.

6The Registrar shall re-schedule the hearing for as soon as possible. Any additional requests by the respondent for an adjournment must be supported by appropriate documentation. Should there be any dates in January or February on which the parties are not available, they must advise the Tribunal within five days of this Interim Decision.