HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Antonio Borraro

Applicant

-and-

Greater Sudbury Police Force

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Antonio Borraro

Applicant

-and-

Greater Sudbury Police Force and Stephanie Usitalo

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Antonio Borraro

Applicant

-and-

Greater Sudbury Police Force and Eric Sanderson

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Antonio Borraro

Applicant

-and-

Greater Sudbury Police Force and Ian Davidson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 565

Indexed as: Borraro v. Greater Sudbury Police Force

[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request to reschedule the hearing.

[2] On November 30, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Confirmation of Hearing Notice to the parties, which informed them that the hearing is scheduled for March 22 and 23, 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.” 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.

[3] The Information Bulletin also states that where the Tribunal has scheduled a number of consecutive hearing dates, and a party is unavailable for some or all of those days, the party must provide five alternative sets of consecutive hearing days coming within 16-22 weeks from the date of the Confirmation of Hearing Notice.

[4] On December 11, 2009, the respondents’ counsel sent the Tribunal a letter, which stated that counsel was not available on the scheduled hearing dates, and requested that the hearing be rescheduled to June 2010.

[5] On December 18, 2009, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, which requested that the Tribunal strike out the respondents’ counsel’s request to reschedule the hearing to June 2010, and that the hearing be rescheduled as close as possible to the original hearing dates.

[6] The respondents’ request to reschedule the hearing is granted, as it appears that the Request was made within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing Notice. On the other hand, the applicant is correct that the respondents’ counsel should have provided availability dates closer to March 22 and 23, 2010. To comply with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin, the respondents’ counsel should have provided five alternative sets of consecutive hearing days between March 22 and May 3.

[7] Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, the Tribunal did not reschedule the hearing earlier. In the circumstances, it seems unlikely that the Tribunal will be able to reschedule the hearing before May 3, 2010.

[8] In the circumstances, the Tribunal directs the parties to communicate with each other and advise the Tribunal by no later than March 22, 2010, as to their availability for a hearing in this matter. I have noted that the respondents’ counsel has sent correspondence which indicates that the respondents are still available to attend a hearing in June. If parties cannot agree to hearing dates, or no communication is received from the parties by March 22, the Tribunal may set hearing dates without further consultation with the parties.

[9] The Tribunal will address the preliminary issues raised by the parties prior to or at the hearing.

10I am not seized of this matter.