Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
William Hall
Applicant
-and-
Southern Ontario Waste Inc., Lee Sanderson and Dale Selkirk
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: Hall v. Southern Ontario Waste
1A Case Resolution Conference (hearing) in this matter is scheduled for June 9 and 10, 2009. The hearing was scheduled by Notice from the Tribunal dated February 9, 2009 upon the consent of the applicant. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for an adjournment.
2The applicant telephoned the Tribunal on June 4, 2009 seeking to adjourn the hearing on the basis that he is registered in a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board training program that requires his full-time attendance until mid-June 2009. He did not set out any explanation why he waited until June 4, 2009 to advise the Tribunal and June 5, 2009 to advise the respondents of his request for an adjournment.
3The respondents have objected to the request for an adjournment and in light of the timing of the request, had no opportunity to file written submissions.
4While 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.
5The 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.
6The reasons for the Request do not constitute exceptional circumstances that would permit an adjournment. The applicant has known since February 2009 that the hearing was scheduled in June 2009 and had the opportunity to request a rescheduling. It is inevitable that the scheduling of hearing days will create some degree of conflict with work or training requirements in many cases. This is simply part of the adjudication process and does not constitute the kind of exceptional circumstances that would warrant granting an adjournment request of this nature.
7The request for adjournment is denied.
Case Management
8The applicant has not filed a statement of additional facts, remedy or a list of witnesses and will say statements. The applicant advised on June 5, 2009 that he has no additional facts to rely upon and that he provided his list of remedies and witnesses to the mediator on February 4, 2009. The applicant is nonetheless directed to provide to the Tribunal and the respondents forthwith, a statement of remedies requested, a witness list and brief description of what those witnesses. The Member hearing this matter will determine whether these materials will be considered.
9The applicant is advised that if he fails to attend the hearing the Tribunal may consider that he has abandoned his Application and it may be dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of June, 2009.
“Signed by”
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair