Gibbs v. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, 2009 HRTO 2261

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

David Gibbs

Applicant

-and-

Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Don Murphy and Bruce Davidson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: December 24, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2261

Indexed as: Gibbs v. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board

1This Interim Decision addresses a request by the applicant for an adjournment of the hearing in this matter currently scheduled for January 12, 2010. This request is opposed by the respondents.

2By letter dated December 22, 2009, a lawyer from the Durham Community Legal Clinic wrote to the Tribunal to advise that the clinic had been consulted by the applicant, but not retained. The letter states that the applicant had been attempting to retain counsel to represent him in this proceeding for some time, but the clinic had been unable to meet with him to review his claim until very recently. The letter states that the clinic is prepared to represent the applicant at a hearing, but requires sufficient time to prepare. Accordingly, the clinic requests on the applicant’s behalf that the hearing be adjourned to a later date. If the adjournment is granted, the clinic states that it will meet again with the applicant and forward confirmation that the clinic has been retained.

3Counsel for the respondents replied by letter dated December 23, 2009, noting that the hearing had been scheduled since November 3, 2009, and that the complaint underlying the Application was filed in August 2005, affording the applicant ample opportunity to retain a lawyer. The respondents also note that the applicant has yet to comply with his disclosure and filing obligations under the Rules.

4The Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments 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. I am concerned that the clinic still has not been formally retained by the applicant, and offers no timeframe within which it would be prepared to represent the applicant at a hearing, if it does get retained to do so. In these circumstances, in my view, it would not be appropriate to grant the requested adjournment.

5The request for adjournment of the hearing is denied.

6I am not seized of this matter.