HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Zenon Macyshyn
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Catholic District School Board
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Zenon Macyshyn
Applicant
-and-
11 other Respondents listed on Schedule “A”
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha
Indexed as: Macyshyn v. Toronto District School Board
1These are twelve separate Applications filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In these Applications, the applicant alleges that he was discriminated against by former employers, the police, a school board, a university, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and a recruitment agency on the grounds of, depending on the Application, race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, family status, marital status, age and receipt of public assistance. The applicant self-identifies as a single, white Canadian citizen of Polish ethnic origin, with a learning disability and possible other unspecified disabilities.
2In a Case Assessment Direction, dated May 28, 2010, the Tribunal directed the scheduling of one-day summary hearing to determine whether the applicant’s allegations in respect of any or all of the respondents have a reasonable prospect of success and could reasonably lead to a finding of a violation of the Code. With respect to file 2010-05266-I, the applicant must also respond to an issue of delay.
3The respondents have not been required to file complete Responses or to produce any documents.
4The hearing is scheduled for January 4, 2011. On December 16, 2010, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the hearing and proposed alternative dates in August 2011.
5In support of his request, the applicant submitted the following: “I was in hospital Dec 10, 2010. At this time I would ask HRTO to sent [sic] out a new date…” Attached to the request was a doctor’s note confirming that the applicant was in the hospital from December 10 to December 15, 2010. In subsequent communications, the applicant has stated that he was hospitalized for three weeks, though he has not provided dates and this claim contradicts his doctor’s note.
6The respondents have been advised of the applicant’s request and, to date, seven of the 13 have responded. Of the seven respondents who have responded, three consent to the request, three oppose it, and one does not take a position. Many of the respondents who have communicated with the applicant or with the Tribunal regarding the adjournment request have asked for further information about the applicant’s circumstances. The applicant’s request appears to be tied simply to the fact of his recent hospitalization. He asserts that the time he lost attending to his medical needs prevented him from having adequate time to prepare for the hearing. It does not appear that any ongoing extraordinary medical issues constrain his ability to prepare for the hearing.
7Adjournment requests are not granted automatically and will only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances. Where a party seeks an adjournment, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises and, if practicable, they should contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates. The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states the following regarding requests for adjournment:
The HRTO’s approach to scheduling and rescheduling hearings is designed to give the parties a fair opportunity to obtain suitable dates.
…
If rescheduling is required, the parties are encouraged to agree on mutually available dates that are within 12 weeks of the original hearing date(s). If the parties are able to agree on alternative dates, one party must advise the HRTO Registrar in writing within 14 days of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. The HRTO will make every effort to schedule the hearing for dates provided by the parties.
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-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.
8In the absence of specific details, I am nonetheless satisfied at minimum that the applicant endured a medical issue serious enough to require hospitalization just a few weeks prior to the hearing. This amounts to exceptional circumstances in the present case, recalling that the purpose of the hearing is solely for the applicant to make the case for his Applications to proceed to a full hearing. The stakes are high and, in the circumstances, an adjournment is warranted.
9There is no reason, however, to adjourn the matter to August 2011. It is understandable that the respondents will be concerned about prejudice to their case caused by excessive delay.
10The parties are directed to provide to the Tribunal available dates in February 2011. In the event that any party fails to do so by December 31, 2010, the Tribunal will assign a date for a February hearing. The date set shall peremptory on the applicant, meaning that no further adjournment requests will be considered. All of the Applications shall be heard on the same day and the respondents will continue to be relieved of their obligation to file a complete Response or to produce any documents.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of December, 2010.
”signed by”________
Faisal Bhabha
Vice-chair
SCHEDULE “A”
File No. Respondent
2010-05239-I Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
2010-05240-I Toronto Community News
2010-05251-I Toronto Police Service
2010-05254-I TNT Express
2010-05255-I Tim Hortons
2010-05259-I Swiss Chalet-Cara Operations Ltd.
2010-05262-I SSP Canada
2010-05264-I Ryerson University
2010-05266-I Optima Communications International Ltd.
2010-05267-I McDonalds
2010-05268-I Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Inc.