Marie Mathurin v. Law Society of Upper Canada and Clare Lewis, 2010 HRTO 2373

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marie Mathurin Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada and Clare Lewis Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: December 1, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2373 Indexed as: Mathurin v. Law Society of Upper Canada

1This is an Application filed on February 18, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2The Tribunal has scheduled a Summary Hearing in this matter, to be held by conference call on January 17, 2011. The Case Assessment Direction directing the Summary Hearing was issued on November 3, 2010 and the Notice of Summary Hearing setting the date was sent to the parties on November 15.

3By letter dated November 16, the applicant stated that she would only be available at the end of May 2011. It does not appear that at the time of this letter, she was in receipt of the November 15 Notice of Summary Hearing. Following receipt of the Notice, the applicant reiterated her request to postpone the Summary Hearing, to the “end of May beginning of June” and has also sent letters from two doctors to support her request.

4The respondents oppose the request to postpone the hearing, indicating that they wish to have the issues determined in a timely manner.

5The Notice of Summary Hearing advises parties that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. The Notice advised that if a party is unavailable on the date scheduled, they must contact the Tribunal within 10 days of the Notice providing 5 alternative dates which fall within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled hearing date.

6The reason for the applicant’s request to postpone is that her “ill health, my family situation, my country’s chaos and all the problems I am confronting with all my limitations and disabilities as a result of my psychosocial stressors of being in such situation of fighting my own government provincial body…” She states that she needs time to “digest all these negative feelings and trauma” and that she requires time until the end of May “by that time getting my brain working properly to fight these ‘powerful lawyers’…” Her doctors’ letters refer in a general way to personal strain and mental health concerns.

7As the applicant made her request to re-schedule in a timely manner in accordance with the Practice Direction, the Tribunal would have adjourned the hearing scheduled for January 17, 2011, provided that it could be rescheduled within 12 weeks after that. Her adjournment request effectively postpones the hearing for a further one to two months beyond that 12-week period. Although the supporting documentation submitted with the applicant’s request is somewhat general, the respondent have not shown any specific prejudice arising out the adjournment. In the circumstances, the Tribunal will allow the request to postpone the hearing. The Tribunal therefore directs the applicant and the respondents to provide in writing, within 2 weeks of this Interim Decision, 5 alternative dates before June 17, 2011 on which they will be available for the Summary Hearing in this matter.

8I am not seized of this matter.