Connolly v. 875036 Ontario Inc., 2010 HRTO 1842

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Connolly

Applicant

-and-

875036 Ontario Inc. o/a Pioneer Family Pools London,

Zoltan Dobinai, Christina Dobsinai, Eion McInerney and

Matthew Dawiczewski

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: September 9, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1842

Indexed as: Connolly v. 875036 Ontario

1A hearing in this matter has been scheduled for September 15, and 16, 2010 in London pursuant to a Confirmation of Hearing notice issued by the Tribunal dated April 23, 2010.

2The Confirmation of Hearing notice set out the parties’ obligations with respect to the disclosure of documents and the disclosure of witnesses based upon Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Confirmation of Hearing notice also referenced Rule 5 which warned about the consequences of failing to comply. Specifically, Rule 5.6 states:

Where a party fails to deliver material to another party or person as required by these Rules, the Tribunal may refuse to consider the material, or may take any other action it considers appropriate.

3As of the date of this Interim Decision, the Tribunal has received the applicant’s documents (as required by Rule 16), witness list and brief statement of anticipated evidence (as required by Rule 17). The Tribunal has received the witness list and statement of anticipated evidence (as required by Rule 17) from the corporate respondent and the personal respondents Zoltan Dobinai and Christina Dobsinai, who are all represented by the same counsel, Michael Lerner. The Tribunal has not received any documents from these respondents as required by Rule 16 and they are directed to send any relevant documentation to the other parties and file them with the Tribunal immediately.

4The Tribunal has also not received any documents, list of witnesses or brief statement of anticipated evidence from the personal respondents Eion McInerney and Matthew Dawiczewski. The Tribunal understands, from an email sent to the Tribunal on August 9, 2010 by the applicant’s counsel, that Mr. Lerner no longer represents Mr. McInerney and Mr. Dawiczewski. The personal respondents Mr. McInerney and Mr. Dawiczewski are directed to send their documents, list of witnesses and brief statement of anticipated evidence to the other parties and to file them with the Tribunal immediately.

5The parties are reminded about Rule 5 which sets out the consequences of a party’s failure to comply with the Rules.

6On September 7, 2010, a letter from Brian Doody, articling student, was sent to the Tribunal on behalf of his firm’s client, Mr. Dawiczewski, requesting an adjournment of the scheduled hearing. The letter states that until September 2009 Mr. Dawiczewski was represented by Mr. Lerner (along with the other respondents) at which time Mr. Dawiczewski was advised to seek and retain separate counsel. The firm was retained by Mr. Dawiczewski on August 25, 2010. The letter states:

After an examination of all the documents provided to us by our client and taking into account all of the circumstances, we are requesting a postponement of the hearing date for at least 4 to 6 weeks. The extra time will allow us to prepare a full defence of his interests and to explore all possible avenues for a resolution including (with leave of this Tribunal) mediation.

7The request for adjournment is 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.

8In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 680, 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.

9The parties were notified of the hearing on April 23, 2010. The request for an adjournment is made well beyond five days after the notice of hearing. 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; Dioba v. Hudson’s Bay Company, 2010 HRTO 1225 and Vallentyne, supra. The request for adjournment cites no exceptional circumstances that justify an adjournment in accordance with the Tribunal’s policies and jurisprudence.

10In the circumstances, it is unnecessary for the respondents to respond to the request. The request for adjournment is denied.