Michael Palangio v. The Corporation of the Town of Cochrane, 2010 HRTO 1221

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Michael Palangio Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the Town of Cochrane, Lawrence Martin, Pierre Demers and Rheal Cousineau Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: May 31, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1221 Indexed as: Palangio v. Cochrane (Town)

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the "Code") which was served on the respondents on October 22, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") on April 3, 2006.

2The hearing in this matter is currently scheduled to proceed on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 in Timmins.

3On May 26, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to advise that he was requesting an adjournment of the June 8, 2010 hearing date. The first reason cited relates to the applicant's retirement situation which has caused him to start litigation with his employer. The applicant states that "this will require input for the few weeks with both my union and my lawyers". The second reason cited is that the applicant's father-in-law is in an Ohio nursing home, and his wife needs some assistance with him. The applicant states that he can keep in touch with his pension issue via e-mail and faxes, but that "a visit to Ohio is necessary at present".

4As the applicant had not sent a copy of his request to the respondents, he was advised to do so and to seek their consent to his request. The applicant did so on the morning of May 27, 2010.

5Later on May 27, 2010, counsel for the respondents wrote to oppose the request. Counsel notes that the hearing has been scheduled for over three months now, and the matter has been outstanding since 2006. With regard to the litigation issue, counsel submits that this does not represent an urgent matter sufficient to warrant a postponement of the hearing, as the applicant does not state that there is any conflicting proceeding but only that the matter requires his input for a few weeks. With regard to the applicant's father-in-law, counsel states that the applicant's father-in-law has been ill for some four years now, and there is no indication of any recent emergency events requiring the applicant's attendance in Ohio at this time.

6In reply, the applicant states that he is going down to Ohio together with his wife, to help her "with myriad things to do with [his] father-in-law". He further states that he is "in the middle of an unexpected and very trying situation that was not here a month ago", and he states that he has his "hands full with two issues at the moment and another issue may arise on Monday with [his] company".

7While 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.

8The 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.

9The reasons for the applicant's adjournment request do not constitute exceptional circumstances that would permit an adjournment. While I can appreciate that a couple of issues have arisen for the applicant which are causing him to feel that his hands are full, the fact remains that this matter has been outstanding for a lengthy period of time and the hearing date has been booked for some time now. With regard to the applicant's pension issue, it appears that he is quite capable of dealing with this issue by e-mail and fax and there is no indication as to any specific conflict (such as a court date) with the scheduled hearing date in this matter.

10With regard to the applicant's father-in-law, and while the Tribunal is sympathetic with the situation, there is no indication by the applicant that there is any particular emergency in relation to his father-in-law's condition that requires him to be in Ohio at the specific time of the scheduled hearing date.

11As a result, the hearing will proceed as scheduled on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 commencing at 10:00 a.m. in Timmins.

12I am not seized.