HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Heather Summers
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, Karen Cross and David Fraser
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Summers v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
1This is an Application was filed with the Tribunal on June 29, 2009, pursuant to section 53(5). This Interim Decision deals with an adjournment request made by the respondents.
2The hearing date of November 2, 2010 was set on April 29, 2010, after consultation with the parties.
3In the Tribunal’s Confirmation of Hearing Date, the parties were advised as follows:
The date above will only be changed for important reasons such as a previously scheduled medical or court appointment which cannot be changed.
You have 10 (ten) days from the date of this letter to advise the Tribunal in writing (including email), with a copy to the other parties, if you are not available to attend on the scheduled date, the reason why you are not available and what alternative dates you are available. The other parties have five days to respond to the request for a change in hearing date and to confirm their availability on the proposed alternative dates.
4The respondents wrote to the Tribunal on September 28, 2010, requesting an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the respondents “have a work conflict on the November 2, 2010 date that we were unaware of”. The applicant opposes the request.
5While the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments does not specifically apply to Transition Applications, nonetheless the principles set out in this Practice Direction are equally applicable to Transition Applications.
6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction now provides that requests to reschedule must be made within ten days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states the following regarding requests for adjournments:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the ten-day period to request rescheduling of a hearing, described above. 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.
The HRTO typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal.” The HRTO encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard. Where parties believe they may be able to resolve a matter shortly before the scheduled hearing, they should advise the Registrar and the HRTO may make a mediator and mediation room available. The parties may also request mediation/adjudication in accordance with Rule 15.2.1 (and Rule 8.5 for s. 53(3) and 53(5) applications). However, the HRTO discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement
7The reason for this request does not constitute an exceptional circumstance that would justify an adjournment. Accordingly, the adjournment request is denied.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of September, 2010.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair