HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Colin Adams

Applicant

-and-

Knoll North America Corp. and Cam Truong

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: December 2, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2077

Indexed as: Adams v. Knoll North America

[1] A Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) in this matter is scheduled for December 14, 2009 to determine the issue of remedy. The hearing was scheduled by Notice from the Tribunal dated October 9, 2009 upon the consent of all parties. This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request for an adjournment.

[2] By letter dated November 30, 2009, the respondents request an adjournment of the hearing on remedy because they have sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision on liability. The application for judicial review was issued on October 2, 2009.

[3] The Tribunal did not seek the submissions of the applicant on this adjournment request.

[4] While 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.

[5] The 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.

[6] The December 14, 2009 hearing date was set on October 9, 2009 on consent of all parties. Material for the hearing on remedy has been filed. The judicial review application was issued on October 2, 2009, prior to setting the December hearing date. The respondents have waited two months to request this adjournment.

[7] While the Tribunal appreciates that the respondents have sought judicial review of its decision on liability, the Tribunal hearing should be completed. If the respondents disagree with the Tribunal’s decision on remedy, the judicial review application can be amended to add grounds relating to remedy, if any. It is not fair to the applicant to delay the hearing on remedy pending the outcome of the judicial review and any further appeals that may be filed. It is a better use of all resources, both the Court’s and the Tribunal’s, to avoid fragmentation of the hearing and the judicial review. The reasons for the Request do not constitute exceptional circumstances that would permit an adjournment.

[8] The request for adjournment is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 2^nd^ day of December, 2009.

“Signed by”

Jennifer Scott

Vice-chair