HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Paul Rodriques
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Community Housing
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Paul Rodriques
Applicant
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 416
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Rodriques v. Toronto Community Housing
[1] A hearing in these matters is scheduled to proceed on Tuesday, August 10, 2010. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing, which is opposed by all respondents.
[2] By letter dated July 28, 2010, the Tribunal was advised that the applicant was requesting an adjournment because one of the applicant’s witnesses is out of the country until the end of August 2010 and because efforts to contact another witness, who is the applicant’s doctor, have been futile as this individual also is out of the country.
[3] By letters dated July 28 and 29, 2010, both respondents oppose the adjournment request.
[4] 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.
[5] The parties were advised of the hearing date by letter from the Tribunal dated March 29, 2010. This hearing date was set after consultation with the parties. In this letter, the parties were advised that the deadline for submitting their lists of proposed witnesses and will-say statements remained as previously indicated, which was that these materials were to be filed no later than 20 days prior to the hearing. As the hearing was scheduled for August 10, 2010, the deadline for submitting these materials was July 21, 2010.
[6] No list of witnesses or will-say statements was filed by the applicant by July 21, 2010, nor was any correspondence received from the applicant regarding his proposed witnesses prior to that date.
7The applicant has known about the hearing date for over four months now, and the date was set in consultation with him. It is unclear to me why it was not known well prior to July 28, 2010, that these two witnesses were not available to attend the hearing, why these witnesses were not put under summons, and why this issue was not raised at a much earlier time.
8The respondents have indicated that they have prepared for the hearing and that their witnesses have had to arrange their summer schedules around the longstanding hearing date. I also note that, in light of the Tribunal’s current hearing schedule for transition cases, the next possible hearing date for this matter would be sometime in 2011.
9For all of these reasons, the request for an adjournment is denied, and the hearing will proceed as scheduled on August 10, 2010, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
Dated at Toronto, this 30^th^ day of July, 2010.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair