Melissa Marshall v. G & A Lock and Security Service Ltd. and Raymond Charron, 2010 HRTO 1285

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Melissa Marshall

Applicant

-and-

G & A Lock and Security Service Ltd. and Raymond Charron

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 4, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1285

Indexed as: Marshall v. G & A Lock and Security Service

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request by the parties to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates.

2A hearing in this matter was originally scheduled for June 28 and 29, 2010 at the Tribunal’s Hearing Centre in Toronto. The original Confirmation of Hearing, dated February 25, 2010, notified the parties of the date and location of the hearing. An Amended Confirmation of Hearing, dated May 19, 2010, was sent to the parties notifying them that the start time of the hearing was changed from 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m..

3In mid-May 2010, counsel for the respondents telephoned the Tribunal indicating that the parties were inquiring about a request for adjournment and rescheduling. Counsel was advised that requests for adjournment should be made in writing. By correspondence dated May 25, 2010, counsel for the respondents wrote the Tribunal asking that the hearing be adjourned on the basis that the hearing was scheduled to occur in Toronto during the G20 Summit. Counsel noted that media coverage has warned that security measures for the Summit will significantly impact travel and access to the downtown core, which includes the Tribunal’s hearing centre. Counsel further indicated that the applicant was agreeable to the request because she too “was interested in adjourning the hearing because her son was scheduled to take a trip at that time.” Counsel advised that the respondents were available to reschedule the hearing in September 2010.

4The Tribunal issued an Amended Notice of Hearing, dated June 2, 2010, notifying the parties that the hearing would proceed on the scheduled dates, however, there was a Change of Venue to Guelph (the location of the events alleged in the Application) in order to accommodate for the travel delay and disruptions arising from the G20 Summit.

5In early June 2010, counsel for the respondents again communicated with the Tribunal to reiterate, on behalf of the parties, that the June hearing dates be adjourned. Counsel indicated that the request to adjourn was also based on the applicant’s needs related to her son’s travel plans. Counsel advised that the respondents consented to the applicant’s request to adjourn the June hearing dates.

6The 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, in part, 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.

7In 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.

8The only reason indicated for the applicant’s request to adjourn relates to her son’s travel plans. This does not constitute such exceptional circumstances that would permit an adjournment. Further, the applicant has not offered an explanation why her son’s travel plans impact on her ability to participate in the hearing. The parties have known since February 2010 that the hearing was scheduled for June 28 and 29, 2010 and had the opportunity to request a rescheduling. The failure of a party to make arrangements for the hearing does not justify an adjournment: Pantoliano v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 570, 2009 HRTO 548.

9In addition, the proposed rescheduling timeframe suggested by the respondents is not brief. It is almost three months after the currently scheduled June hearing dates, beyond five months from the date of the Confirmation of Hearing and inconsistent with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin referenced above.

10The request for adjournment is denied.