Sarah Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales (1980) Ltd. and Ainslie Hogan, 2009 HRTO 907

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sarah Dunford Applicant

-and-

Holiday Ford Sales (1980) Ltd. and Ainslie Hogan Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: June 24, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 907 Indexed as: Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales

1This Application made under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") alleges discrimination on the grounds of sex, family status and marital status in employment.

2The Application was filed on July 18, 2008 and named Holiday Ford Sales (1980) Ltd. ("the "company") and Ainslie Hogan as respondents. Responses were filed in September, 2008.

3The case was scheduled for hearing on February 10, 2009 but was adjourned at the request of the applicant. The hearing was rescheduled for July 20, 2009 by a "Confirmation of rescheduled hearing" dated April 24, 2009.

[4] The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding ("the Request") on June 3, 2009, which seeks:

• the addition of David Edgerton and Holiday Ford Lincoln Ltd. as respondents;
• an order permitting an amendment to the applicant's Statement of Facts; and,
• production of extensive documentation which is arguably relevant to the issues in the Application.

5Only the personal respondent has responded to the Request and the deadline for doing so has now passed.

6By letter dated June 12, 2009, counsel for the company and David Edgerton requested an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that counsel is not available on that date. He has not provided any reason for his unavailability.

7Counsel for the applicant opposes the adjournment as the matter has been outstanding for some time, and relied on Vallentyne Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534. In that decision the Tribunal indicated that when a party makes a decision to retain counsel after the notice of hearing has been issued by the Tribunal, their choice of counsel is limited by the date previously scheduled.

8The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Accordingly, when an adjournment request is made, the Tribunal must consider not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding, but the fact that Tribunal hearing time reserved for the resolution of those parties' dispute will no longer be used. It should be noted that the Tribunal's Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even those adjournment requests made on the consent of the parties more than five days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has struck a balance between the interests of the parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel's availability, and the broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and by providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

9In the circumstances where the request for adjournment is made outside the five day period and counsel has identified no exceptional circumstances supporting the Request, the Tribunal denies the respondent's adjournment request. However, given the significant case management matters which must be addressed the July 20 hearing will be devoted to case management including, but not necessarily limited to, the disposition of the applicant's Request.

10The Tribunal orders the company and David Edgerton to file a Response to the Request in Form 11 within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11In counsel's letter dated June 12, 2009, there is an indication that the company may wish to seek production of documents from the applicant.

If such production is to be sought, that should be done by way of the service of a Request for Order during Proceeding in Form 10, which must be served and filed within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision.