[1] A hearing in these matters is scheduled to proceed in Ottawa on Monday, July 26, 2010. This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request for an adjournment, which is opposed by the applicant.

[2] By e-mail dated July 18, 2010, the Tribunal was advised that one of the respondent’s proposed witnesses, David Barnett, had broken his leg a couple of weeks earlier and has had a partial hip replacement, and is still in hospital and in a great deal of pain. Mr. Barnett’s spouse, Ruth Duffy, is also a proposed witness, and the Tribunal was advised that she also would not be able to attend under the circumstances. As a result, the respondent requested that the hearing in this matter be adjourned until mid-September 2010.

[3] On July 19, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to request the applicant’s position on the adjournment request. The parties also were advised that, if the adjournment were granted, the hearing would not likely proceed before February 2011.

[4] On July 21, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal by e-mail to object to the adjournment request. He states that the request is unreasonable due to the shortness of the notice.

[5] The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the ten-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing . Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax, copied to the other parties.

[6] The Application in this matter alleges discrimination because of disability in relation to the provision of services, arising out of the issue of whether smoking should be permitted on the grounds of the respondent club. The applicant states that he has a disability arising out of his heart transplant in 1992 which requires him not to be exposed to second hand smoke. The issues for this Tribunal to determine include the nature of the applicant’s needs arising out of his disability in relation to exposure to second hand smoke, and whether any such needs were appropriately accommodated by the respondent.

[7] On July 7, 2010, the respondent filed with the Tribunal a list of five proposed witnesses for the hearing. Mr. Barnett is listed as one of these proposed witnesses, and his evidence is identified as being in relation to an incident where the applicant is alleged to have yelled at a member of the respondent club in front of other members. It appears that this relates to an incident described in the respondent’s Response in which the applicant is alleged to have yelled at a club member who was smoking in what the respondent describes as a designated outdoor smoking area at the club.

[8] I note that the respondent proposes to call two other witnesses to also give evidence regarding this incident. As a result, it is not clear to me that Mr. Barnett’s evidence is necessary for the determination of this matter. In addition, it is not clear to me the extent to which evidence relating to this incident is relevant to the issues to be determined at the hearing. In my view, the issue of the necessity for and relevance of Mr. Barnett’s evidence can be determined by the adjudicator at the hearing on July 26, 2010, and Mr. Barnett’s inability to attend the hearing is not a sufficient basis to necessitate an adjournment of the hearing. If the adjudicator determines that Mr. Barnett’s evidence is necessary and relevant to the issues arising in this matter, then the adjudicator can make alternative arrangements to receive Mr. Barnett’s evidence.

[9] Mr. Barnett’s spouse, Ruth Duffy, also is listed as a proposed witness, with her evidence relating to club meetings and an incident at the club gate when the applicant was asked to hand over tournament monies prior to leaving. With regard to evidence about club meetings, I note that one other witness, Edith Pedden, also is identified as being able to give evidence regarding meetings. With regard to the incident at the club gate, the relevance of this proposed evidence is not clear to me. Once again, in my view, the necessity for and relevance of Ms. Duffy’s proposed evidence is best determined by the adjudicator at the hearing, and Ms. Duffy’s inability to attend the hearing is not a sufficient basis to necessitate an adjournment of the hearing. If the adjudicator determines that Ms. Duffy’s evidence is necessary and relevant to the issues arising in this matter, then the adjudicator can make appropriate arrangements to receive her evidence. In this regard, while I am not unsympathetic to the medical situation affecting Ms. Duffy’s spouse, it is not clear to me why her husband’s medical situation would prevent her from attending at the hearing on July 26, 2010 to provide her evidence.

[10] For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the respondent has established the kind of exceptional circumstances required in order to justify an adjournment of the hearing. Accordingly, the hearing will proceed as scheduled in Ottawa on Monday, July 26, 2010 commencing at 10:00 a.m. The parties should appear at the hearing with all other proposed witnesses and should be prepared to proceed with the hearing at that time.

[11] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd day of July, 2010.

“Signed by”

Mark Hart

Vice-chair

Denis Richardson v. Smith Falls Lawn Bowling Club, 2010 HRTO 1594

Case Summary

[1] A hearing in these matters is scheduled to proceed in Ottawa on Monday, July 26, 2010. This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request for an adjournment, which is opposed by the applicant.

[3] On July 19, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to request the applicant’s position on the adjournment request. The parties also were advised that, if the adjournment were granted, the hearing would not likely proceed before February 2011.

[4] On July 21, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal by e-mail to object to the adjournment request. He states that the request is unreasonable due to the shortness of the notice.

[5] The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

[11] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd day of July, 2010.

[1] A hearing in these matters is scheduled to proceed in Ottawa on Monday, July 26, 2010. This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request for an adjournment, which is opposed by the applicant.

[3] On July 19, 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to request the applicant’s position on the adjournment request. The parties also were advised that, if the adjournment were granted, the hearing would not likely proceed before February 2011.

[4] On July 21, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal by e-mail to object to the adjournment request. He states that the request is unreasonable due to the shortness of the notice.

[5] The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

[11] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of July, 2010.

Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd day of July, 2010.