minicounsel

John Fleming v. The Corporation of the City of North Bay, 2009 HRTO 587 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

May 6, 2009

John Fleming v. The Corporation of the City of North Bay, 2009 HRTO 587

Case Summary

The applicant requested an adjournment of his human rights hearing, arguing he needed time to sell his home to afford a legal opinion regarding the impact of the proceeding. The respondent opposed the request, citing prejudice due to the availability of its witnesses and the passage of time since the applicant's termination. The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting the applicant failed to request rescheduling within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and finding that his financial situation did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying a delay.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Fleming

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of North Bay

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: May 6, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 587

Indexed as: Fleming v. North Bay (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

John Fleming, Applicant ) On His Own Behalf

The Corporation of the City of North Bay, ) Peigi Ross, Counsel

Respondent )

[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an adjournment of the hearing.

[2] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 27, 2008. The parties attended a mediation on January 26, 2009, which did not result in a settlement. On March 3, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing is scheduled for June 1, 2 and 3, 2009. The Confirmation also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Information Bulletin provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within five (5) days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing, and requests for adjournments will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness or representative.

[3] The applicant faxed the Tribunal a letter on April 29, 2009, which requests an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that he is waiting for financial assistance in order to obtain a legal opinion on whether or not a decision in this case will impact on any future proceeding that he will be pursuing against the respondent and/or the North Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association (“NBPFFA”). He further states that he may not be able to obtain the money that he needs until he sells his home in North Bay, which may take some time. He proposes alternate hearing dates in September, October and November.

[4] The respondent faxed the Tribunal a letter on April 30, 2009, which opposes the applicant’s request. The respondent states that the applicant had had ample opportunity since the commencement of the proceedings to seek legal advice, and did, in fact, receive legal advice from the NBPFFA with respect to the main issue in this Application. The respondent also states that it will suffer prejudice if this matter does not proceed as scheduled because two of its witnesses – a retired Fire Chief and an expert witness – have been secured for the hearing dates, but have busy schedules, and may not be available for some period of time in the future if the dates are adjourned. The respondent also states that almost two years have passed since the termination of the applicant’s employment, and a further delay of the hearing would be unreasonable and unfair as memories fade.

[5] The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of applications before it. In my view, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to grant the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing. The applicant did not make a request to reschedule the hearing within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing, and has provided no explanation why he failed to do so. Furthermore, the reason that he provides for requesting an adjournment – he needs time to sell his house in order to obtain money to pay for a legal opinion – is not an “extraordinary” circumstance, which justifies delaying the hearing.

[6] The applicant’s Request for an adjournment of the hearing is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 6^th^ day of May, 2009.

“Signed by”

Ken Bhattacharjee

Vice-chair