HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jessey Villella
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of York Emergency Medical Services Branch, Ben Thompson and Joseph Neumayer
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Jessey Villella
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board and Vernon Ward
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Jessey Villella
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Villella v. Regional Municipality of York Emergency Medical Services Branch
1These are three Applications under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the Code), all dated June 29, 2009. The underlying complaints were all filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on June 28, 2007. This Interim Decision deals with a second request by the applicant to adjourn the hearing scheduled to begin on November 16, 2010.
2The basis for the applicant’s request is set out in correspondence dated November 15, 2010. The applicant alleges that he has filed a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada alleging misconduct by a solicitior for two of the respondents above. The applicant states that he seeks the adjournment of these matters pending the resolution of the complaint. The applicant also states that he intends to seek reconsideration of the Tribunal’s recent decisions and requests the adjournment of the hearing for this reason as well. Finally the applicant states that the Tribunal has still not addressed his allegations of a conflict of interest on the part of Vice-chair Hart and requests an adjournment pending this concern being properly addressed. The applicant states that these are exceptional circumstances that justify an adjournment. The applicant relies upon Tribunal Decision 2009 HRTO 748 where an adjournment was granted in similar circumstnces.
3The respondents all oppose the adjournment request.
4The adjournment request is denied.
5I am not satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which would justify an adjournment of these matters which have been scheduled for several months and relate to events which occurred several years ago.
6The applicant states that he has made a complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada concerning the conduct of the solicitor for two of the three respondents which occurred at an unspecified time but in the context of a “meeting” at the Ontario Human Rights Commission – which must have occurred many months if not several years ago.
7There is no explanation offered for the applicant failing to raise this issue prior to the day before the hearing. I note in this regard that this is the second adjournment request and while the applicant has been in amost daily communication with the Tribunal and/or the other parties about a mulititude of issues, a request to adjourn on this basis was not made until the very last minute.
8I am also not satisfied that a complaint to the Law Society is necessarily an exceptional circumstance. The applicant relies on the Tribunal’s decision 2009 HRTO 748 that granted an adjournment because a complaint had been made against the solicitor for an opposing party. However the responding party in that case did not oppose the adjournment request. The decision does not stand for the proposition that the mere making of a complaint to the Law Society about counsel for an opposing party would justify an adjournment of a hearing.
9The applicant continues to state that his allegations of a conflict of interest have not been addressed by the Tribunal. This is not accurate. The Tribubnal has advised the parties that the allegations of the applicant may be raised at the outset of the hearing on November 16. The applicant was directed to deliver his materials setting out the basis for his allegations. The applicant has not complied with this direction to date.
10Finally the applicant states that he intends to request reconsideration of the Tribunal’s recent decisions. All of the Tribunal’s decisions in these Applications relate to preliminary and procedural matters and are not final decisions. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and is not normally granted. It is rarely if ever granted in respect of interim decisions. In any event the suggestion that a request for reconsideration might be made is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment of the hearing.
11For all of these reasons the adjournment request is denied.
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of November, 2010.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair