Nacon Dioba v. Hudson’s Bay Company, 2010 HRTO 1225

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Nacon Dioba

Applicant

-and-

Hudson’s Bay Company

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: June 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1225

Indexed as: Dioba v. Hudson’s Bay Company

1A hearing in this matter is scheduled for Monday, June 7, 2010. The applicant has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings requesting that it be adjourned until August 1, 2010. The reason given for the Request is:

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre called me on May 26, 2010 and told me that its lawyer needs more time to prepare in order to represent me.

2The Tribunal has not been advised under Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“the Centre”) is the applicant’s representative. The applicant’s statement above falls short of providing formal confirmation that the Centre may be added to the file as the applicant’s legal representative for the purposes of this Application. If it is the applicant’s legal representative, it is not clear why the Centre has not made the request for an adjournment on the applicant’s behalf.

3In any event, the request for an adjournment must be denied. 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 (5) days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

4In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal held:

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.

5The parties were notified of the hearing in this matter on February 8, 2010. The request for an adjournment is made well beyond five days after the notice of the hearing. Change of counsel or a decision to retain counsel has not generally been recognized as an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment: Khan v. CCSI COMPUCOM Systems, 2009 HRTO 1697. The request for adjournment cites no exceptional circumstances that justify an adjournment in accordance with the Tribunal’s policies and jurisprudence.

6In the circumstances, it is unnecessary for the respondent to respond to the request. The request for adjournment is denied.