TenBruggencate v. Elgin (County), 2010 HRTO 677

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Roeland TenBruggencate on behalf of Albert TenBruggencate

Applicant

-and-

County of Elgin and Michael Toth

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: March 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 677

Indexed as: TenBruggencate v. Elgin (County)

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on behalf of his father, alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability. This Interim Decision deals with a request from Dr. Toth, the personal respondent, for an adjournment.

REQUEST TO ADJOURN

2The Tribunal sent the parties a “Confirmation of Hearing” Notice (the Confirmation of Hearing”) on October 15, 2009, scheduling the hearing for April 13 and 14, 2010.

3The personal respondent’s counsel has requested, in a letter dated February 22, 2010, an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the respondent has a conflict and is now unable to attend the hearing. Counsel for the personal respondent identifies a number of alternative dates in April, May and June, 2010. Counsel for the County of Elgin, the institutional respondent, has written to the Tribunal to indicate that the personal respondent has not provided any specifics for the conflict giving rise to the request for an adjournment and accordingly the Tribunal may require additional information in considering the adjournment request. The Tribunal has not received any response from the applicant to the request for an adjournment.

4The Confirmation of Hearing states that requests for adjournments will be dealt with according to the Tribunal’s “Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments”. The Information Bulletin provides that requests to reschedule must be made within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing, and goes on to state the following regarding requests for adjournment:

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 the 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 alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing. Alternative 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.

5The request for an adjournment is denied. The personal respondent has known of the date of the hearing since October 2009. To state, in the briefest terms, that he now has a conflict does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants an adjournment. No reason has been provided to indicate why this request for an adjournment has been made at a relatively late date or, more importantly, what the personal respondent’s conflict might be and why it should be afforded greater import than the hearing scheduled before the Tribunal. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to solicit additional information from the personal respondent in this circumstance.

6For all of the above reasons, the personal respondent’s request is denied.

7I am not seized of this matter.