minicounsel

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joshua Regisford by his next friend Vidoll Regisford

Applicant

-and-

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, Casey Homick

and Jennifer Pouw-Witter

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: June 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 852

Indexed as: Regisford v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

[1] This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. Following a mediation at which the matter did not settle, the Tribunal sent the parties a “Confirmation of Hearing” notice on April 22, 2009 scheduling the hearing for July 27, 28, and 29. The letter stated that requests for adjournments would be dealt with according to the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments.

[2] By letter dated April 29, 2009, counsel for the respondents wrote to request a brief extension of time for the disclosure deadline. This letter made no mention of rescheduling the hearing. By letter dated May 4, 2009, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to state that he was “unable to participate in a hearing during the week proposed by the respondents (i.e. the week of August 24, 2009).” He stated that he would canvass dates with the respondent on a conference call between counsel on May 6, 2009. Neither party wrote to the Tribunal following the call on May 6, 2009, to request a rescheduling.

[3] On June 4, 2009, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating that “there are no dates in July or August that would work for all the parties” and requesting a list of available hearing dates starting in September of 2009.

[4] The 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 days of receiving the Notice of Hearing. The Information Bulletin states the following regarding requests for adjournment:

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 alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing. Alternative 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.

[5] In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

[6] The parties have not cited any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that justify the rescheduling of the hearing at this stage. Accordingly, the request that the hearing be rescheduled is denied, and it will proceed on July 27, 28, and 29, 2009.

[7] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of June, 2009.

“signed by”

David A. Wright

Vice-chair

Regisford v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 852

Case Summary

[3] On June 4, 2009, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating that “there are no dates in July or August that would work for all the parties” and requesting a list of available hearing dates starting in September of 2009.

[5] In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

[6] The parties have not cited any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that justify the rescheduling of the hearing at this stage. Accordingly, the request that the hearing be rescheduled is denied, and it will proceed on July 27, 28, and 29, 2009.

[7] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of June, 2009.

Regisford v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 852

Case Summary

[3] On June 4, 2009, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating that “there are no dates in July or August that would work for all the parties” and requesting a list of available hearing dates starting in September of 2009.

[5] In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

[6] The parties have not cited any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that justify the rescheduling of the hearing at this stage. Accordingly, the request that the hearing be rescheduled is denied, and it will proceed on July 27, 28, and 29, 2009.

[7] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of June, 2009.

[3] On June 4, 2009, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating that “there are no dates in July or August that would work for all the parties” and requesting a list of available hearing dates starting in September of 2009.

[5] In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

[6] The parties have not cited any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that justify the rescheduling of the hearing at this stage. Accordingly, the request that the hearing be rescheduled is denied, and it will proceed on July 27, 28, and 29, 2009.

[7] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of June, 2009.

[3] On June 4, 2009, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating that “there are no dates in July or August that would work for all the parties” and requesting a list of available hearing dates starting in September of 2009.

[5] In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

[6] The parties have not cited any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that justify the rescheduling of the hearing at this stage. Accordingly, the request that the hearing be rescheduled is denied, and it will proceed on July 27, 28, and 29, 2009.

[7] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of June, 2009.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of June, 2009.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of June, 2009.