Michelle Pantoliano v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 570, 2009 HRTO 548

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Pantoliano

Applicant

-and-

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 570,

York Condominium Corporation No. 531 and Antonello Conforti

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 30, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 548

Indexed as: Pantoliano v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 570

1A hearing in this matter is scheduled for May 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2009. The hearing was scheduled by Notice from the Tribunal dated February 12, 2009 (“Confirmation of Hearing”).

2Counsel for the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated April 21, 2009, requesting an adjournment because, despite reasonable efforts to retain an expert, one had not yet been retained. Counsel submitted that when the Confirmation of Hearing had been issued, the applicant was represented by different counsel. Current counsel was retained on or about March 20, 2009. Counsel asked that the hearing be scheduled for August 2009 and provided various dates in August.

3Counsel for the respondents filed a Response to a Request for an Order dated April 28, 2009 objecting to the adjournment. This Interim Decision addresses the request for adjournment.

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. 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.

5The adjournment request being made by the applicant is not brief. It is approximately three months after the currently scheduled May hearing dates, beyond five months from the date of the Confirmation of Hearing and inconsistent with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin referenced above.

6Further, the reasons for the request do not constitute exceptional circumstances that would permit an adjournment. The applicant has known since mid-February 2009 that the hearing was scheduled in May 2009 and had the opportunity to request a rescheduling at that time. The respondents’ pleadings clearly set out that they would be relying upon public health and safety concerns in support of the rule that is the subject matter of this Application. The respondents’ experts are aware of the May hearing dates, are from out of the province and have committed to attending the hearing.

7I do not accept the applicant’s arguments that she will be prejudiced and denied an opportunity for a fair hearing if her request for an adjournment is denied. The applicant has had considerable opportunity to make such arrangements since the hearing was scheduled on February 12, 2009. Her failure to do so does not lead to a violation of procedural fairness.

8The request for adjournment is denied.