Boldy v. Manufacturers Life Insurance, 2010 HRTO 532

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Peter Boldy

Applicant

-and-

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, Darlene Ahearn and John Cowling

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: March 11, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 532

Indexed as: Boldy v. Manufacturers Life Insurance

1A Hearing in this matter is scheduled for April 21, 2010. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for an adjournment and a request to permit the late filing of a statement of additional facts and remedy.

Request to Adjourn

2The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking an adjournment on the basis that his clinical psychologist is not available on the scheduled date of hearing. The respondents oppose the adjournment request and assert that the psychologist’s oral evidence is not required, and that filing of his/her reports is sufficient.

3While the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments does not specifically apply to Transition Applications, nonetheless the principles set out in this Information Bulletin are equally applicable to Transition Applications.

4The Tribunal’s Information Bulletin provides that requests to reschedule must be made within five (5) days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Information Bulletin states the following regarding requests for adjournments:

Requests for adjournment, particularly last minute requests for adjournments are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice.

The Tribunal’s approach to scheduling and rescheduling mediations and hearings is designed to give the parties a fair opportunity to find suitable dates. Therefore, the Tribunal discourages adjournment requests, and will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative.

The Tribunal will not automatically grant adjournments even when all parties consent. Consent of all parties will be a factor which the Tribunal will consider where a request to adjourn a mediation or hearing is made, but it is not the only, or even the main factor.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. If practical, they should contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternate dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing. Alternate dates for mediation must fall within five (5) months of the date of the Notice of Application. Alternative dates for a hearing must fall within five (5) months of the date of the Confirmation of Hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the reason for the request and the alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by telephone or email.

The Tribunal typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal”. The Tribunal encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard. Where parties believe they may be able to resolve a matter shortly before the scheduled hearing, they should advise the Registrar and the Tribunal will make a mediator and mediation room available. However, the Tribunal discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement.

5The reasons for the Request do not constitute exceptional circumstances that would permit an adjournment. The hearing date was confirmed to the parties by letter dated December 14, 2009. The applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation for why the proposed witness’ oral evidence is essential and, if essential, what efforts were made to ensure the witness’ availability on the scheduled hearing date.

6The request for an adjournment is denied.

Use of Recordings

7The applicant made reference to tape recordings of alleged bullying and harassing conversations. The respondents assert that the recordings are barely understandable and their relevance is unclear. The admissibility and/or weight to be given to the recordings can be addressed by the adjudicator hearing this Application.

Request for an extension to file a Statement of Additional Facts and Remedy

8The Tribunal set a deadline of January 13, 2009 for the applicant to file his statement of additional facts and remedy and to make disclosure of arguably relevant documents in its Notice of Case Resolution Conference of December 14, 2009. The Tribunal granted the applicant an extension, over the objection of the respondents, to February 13, 2009. As February 13, 2009 was a Saturday and Monday, February 15, 2009 was a provincial statutory holiday, the applicant’s materials were due Tuesday, February 16, 2009.

9The applicant submitted four different versions of his statement of facts and remedy between February 12 and February 26, 2010, each one allegedly more detailed than the last. The respondents seek to have any statement filed after February 13, 2010 excluded.

10I find that there is no prejudice to the respondents in my granting an extension to the applicant and accepting the final and most detailed statement of facts filed by February 26, 2010. In light of the fact that the hearing is not scheduled until April 21, 2010, there is ample time for the respondents to prepare a response to that statement of additional facts. The respondents acknowledge that the various versions of the applicant’s statement of facts are similar, but not identical. They have filed their statement of additional facts to the applicant’s original statement of facts, but not to the February 26, 2010 version. Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents may file an additional or alternative statement of additional facts and response to remedy.

11The applicant has suggested that he may continue to revise his statement of additional facts and remedy. That is not acceptable. The deadline has now passed and the respondents should not be required to respond to constantly changing versions of events.

12If any further statements of additional facts are filed by the applicant, the respondents are not required to respond and the adjudicator hearing this Application may decide not to admit or consider such further statements, if any.