Jean Gardiner v. 1708840 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Mr. Rooter London et al., 2009 HRTO 2269

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jean Gardiner

Applicant

-and-

1708840 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Mr. Rooter London, 2028493 Ontario Inc.,

1394493 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Mr. Rooter Cambridge,

139442 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Hy-Pro Plumbing, and Alan Little

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: December 29, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2269

Indexed as: Gardiner v. 1708840 Ontario

1The applicant filed an Application on February 2, 2009 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and sexual harassment. The matter is scheduled for hearing in February 2010. This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ request for an adjournment.

2The Tribunal sent the parties a “Confirmation of Hearing” Notice on September 21, 2009, scheduling the hearing for February 1, 2, 3, and 16, 2010 (“the February hearing”).

3On October 9, 2009, the respondents, through their counsel, produced a list of all their arguably relevant documents and copies of the documents to the applicant and the Tribunal in accordance with Rule 16. The applicant submitted a Form 25, Statement of Delivery, to the Tribunal indicating that she sent her list of arguably relevant documents and copies of the documents to the respondents’ counsel. The parties are reminded of their obligations under rule 16.3 and 17.1 in advance of the hearing.

4By letter dated December 10, 2009, counsel for the respondents requested an adjournment of the February hearing. He states that counsel that had carriage of the matter has left the 14-lawyer firm where he practices, and he is the only lawyer who is qualified to take on the matter. He has prior cases scheduled for the dates in question. In addition to setting out reasons for the request, counsel provided 34 dates on which the respondents were available between February 22 and April 30 (“the 34 dates”). The applicant opposes the request for adjournment, but does not indicate that she is unavailable on any of the 34 dates.

5The Tribunal’s policy is to only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances. In the specific circumstances of this case, I am prepared to find that counsel’s departure from the small firm, which had nothing to with the respondents, constitutes such extraordinary circumstances. In exercising my discretion, I also take into account the many possible hearing dates provided by counsel and the fact that it will be possible for the Tribunal to schedule a hearing on some of the available dates in March 2009. Therefore, the Tribunal grants the respondents’ request for an adjournment. The February hearing dates are cancelled and the Registrar will reschedule the hearing in March 2009 and send written confirmation of the new hearing dates to the parties.

6I am not seized of this matter.