HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Barbara Hoekstra Applicant

-and-

Faith Christian Reformed Church Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Nicholas Minigan Applicant

-and-

Faith Christian Reformed Church Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Barbara Hoekstra on behalf of Claire Hoekstra Applicant

-and-

Faith Christian Reformed Church Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Barbara Hoekstra on behalf of Bethany Hoekstra Applicant

-and-

Faith Christian Reformed Church Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: December 3, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2413 Indexed as: Hoekstra v. Faith Christian Reformed Church

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Faith Christian Reformed Church, ) Sean Jackson, Counsel Respondent )

Barbara Hoekstra, Nicholas Minigan, ) Barbara Hoekstra, Barbara Hoekstra on behalf of Claire ) Representative Hoekstra, Barbara Hoekstra on behalf ) of Bethany Hoekstra, Applicants )

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s Request to defer, hold in abeyance, or adjourn the hearing of the four Applications.

BACKGROUND

2On November 16, 2009, the applicants filed four Applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent subjected Barbara Hoekstra to reprisal, that the respondent subjected Nicholas Minigan (Barbara Hoekstra’s husband) to reprisal and discriminated against him because of his association with his wife, and that the respondent discriminated against Claire Hoekstra and Bethany Hoekstra (Barbara Hoekstra’s daughters) because of their association with their mother.

3On February 5, 2010, the respondent filed Responses, which denied the allegations of reprisal and discrimination.

4On August 17, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Confirmation of Hearing Notice to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for December 13, 14 and 15, 2010.

DEFERRAL/ABEYANCE

5On November 3, 2010, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, which requested that the Tribunal defer, or hold in abeyance, the hearing of the four Applications until three other Applications (File No: 2009-03172-I, 2009-03171-I and 2010-05158-I) before the Tribunal have been dealt with.

6The respondent submitted that the Tribunal should defer, or hold in abeyance, the four Applications because there is a considerable overlap in facts and issues with the other three Applications, and that chronologically, the facts related to the other three Applications occurred, for the most part, first.

7The respondent also submitted that because there are allegations of reprisal and discrimination because of association in the four Applications that are related to events that occurred in two of the other Applications (File No: 2009-03172-I and 2009-03171-I), the Tribunal cannot properly make a decision in the four Applications until it makes a decision with respect to those two other Applications.

8The respondent further submitted that a decision in those two other Applications will shorten the time and expense involved in hearing the evidence in the four Applications.

9The applicants filed a Response on November 17, 2010, which opposed the respondent’s Request.

10The applicants submitted that the hearing of the four Applications should proceed as scheduled because the other three Applications deal with discrete events, and the merits of the other three Applications will not impact on the merits of these four Applications.

11Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

12The respondent’s Request to defer, or hold in abeyance, the hearing of the four Applications is denied. I have carefully reviewed the pleadings in all seven files, and my view is that deferral is not the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the hearing of these four Applications.

13I agree with the respondent that the four Applications relate to the other three Applications, and, chronologically, the facts related to the other three Applications, for the most part, occurred first, but I disagree that there is a considerable overlap in facts and issues. In addition, I agree with the applicants that the other three Applications deal with discrete events, and, I would add, discrete issues.

14Furthermore, aside from making general statements, the respondent has not fully explained why, and I do not see how, the Tribunal cannot properly make a decision in these four Applications until it makes a decision with respect to two of the other Applications (File No: 2009-03172-I and 2009-03171-I). The respondent has also not fully explained, and I do not see, how a decision in those two other Applications will shorten the time and expense involved in hearing the evidence in these four Applications.

ADJOURNMENT

15The respondent’s counsel also requested that the hearing be adjourned because he is not available to attend a hearing until February or March, 2011. The applicants did not address the adjournment Request in their Response.

16The Confirmation of Hearing Notice, which was sent to the parties on August 17, 2010, informed them that requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Information Bulletin in effect at that time provided that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within five days of receiving the Notice, and thereafter, requests for adjournments would only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness or representative.

17The respondent’s counsel’s Request to adjourn the hearing is denied. In my view, it would not be fair, just and expeditious to grant the Request. I understand from correspondence in the file that the respondent’s counsel did not receive the Confirmation of Hearing Notice until September 7, 2010, but he did not make a request to reschedule the hearing within five days after receiving it, and has provided no explanation why he failed to do so. Furthermore, the reason that he provided for requesting an adjournment is not an “extraordinary” circumstance, which justifies delaying the hearing.

ORDER

18The respondent’s request to Request to defer, hold in abeyance, or adjourn the hearing of the four Applications is dismissed.