Madieros v. Cambridge Canvas Centre, 2010 HRTO 2372

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vicky Madieros

Applicant

-and-

Cambridge Canvas Centre and Jeff Campbell

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: December 1, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2372

Indexed as: Madieros v. Cambridge Canvas Centre

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request to reschedule a hearing into an alleged breach of settlement on the part of the respondent. The respondent has not filed a Response to the Application.

2The Tribunal sent the parties a “Confirmation of Hearing” Notice (the “Confirmation of Hearing”) on November 3, 2010. The Confirmation of Hearing Notice informed the parties that the hearing is scheduled for February 8, 2010. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s “Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments.” As indicated in the Notice, the Information Bulletin provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness or representative.

3On November 22, 2010, the respondent sent an e-mail to the Registrar, copied to the applicant, indicating that he was busy with his business and that he would be able to “attend to this matter” after May 1, 2010.

4The respondents’ request to reschedule the hearing is denied, as it appears that the Request was not made within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing Notice, and the respondent has noted no circumstances that would warrant an adjournment.

5In Vallentyne v. Royal Canada Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

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 those 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.

6The Tribunal has held that a party’s decision to change their representative after the hearing has been scheduled, witnesses’ unavailability due to vacation, and requiring more time to prepare are not “extraordinary circumstances” justifying an adjournment. See, for example, Vallentyne, supra, Khan v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 820 and Knibbs v. Brant Artillery Gunners Club, 2009 HRTO 1601.

7The respondents’ request to adjourn is denied; the hearing will proceed on the date scheduled.

8I am not seized of this matter.