B.C. v. London Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1027

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

B.C.

Applicant

-and-

London Police Services Board and Murray Faulkner

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: May 27, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1027

Indexed as: B.C. v. London Police Services Board

1This is an Application filed on October 22, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of sex. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for May 31, 2011, to consider whether the Application should be dismissed under section 45.1 or sections 34(1) and 34(2) of the Code. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request for an adjournment.

2The applicant has requested, in an email dated March 27, 2011, an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the documents the respondents disclosed were not disclosed at least 45 days prior to the hearing, as required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The applicant states that he received the respondents’ documents within the last two weeks.

3The applicant also submits that he is not properly prepared for the hearing and that given the importance of the hearing justice would not be served if the hearing was to proceed at this time. The applicant submits that he has been diagnosed as having Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and that depression related to this disorder has made it impossible for him to get properly prepared. The applicant further states that he intends to seek the assistance of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

DECISION

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, in part, that:

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.

5The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied. I am not satisfied that the present situation constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.

6The applicant submits that the respondents have disclosed late documents and that he has been, in effect, prejudiced by this late disclosure. The materials the respondents disclosed on May 16, 2011, are written submissions and case law to support the respondents’ position that the Application should be dismissed under section 45.1, as well as a document brief containing 11 documents and one chart, all of which relate to the applicant’s prior complaints to the London Police Services Board and to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

7I am satisfied that the respondents’ written submissions and case law relate to the arguments the respondents will be making as part of their oral submissions during the hearing. It is not necessary to submit these types of materials 45 days before the date of a hearing. I note that 9 of the 11 substantive documents in the respondents’ document brief filed on May 16, 2011, were contained in the Respondents’ Response that was filed in December 2009. The other two substantive documents are letters from Deputy Chiefs of the London Police Service to the applicant dated July 15, 2008 and May 28, 2009, documents that the applicant is well aware of. I do not see why, under these circumstances, an adjournment of the hearing is required based on the respondents’ late disclosure.

8The applicant states that he is not prepared and refers to having medical conditions that have interfered with his ability to prepare for the hearing. A simple assertion about having medical conditions is not a sufficient reason to adjourn the hearing. I have no information from a medical practitioner to indicate that the applicant is unable, at this specific time, to participate in the scheduled hearing for health related reasons.

9The applicant states that he would like additional time to seek the assistance of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. The applicant should have pursued this interest in a more timely fashion. Making this request four days before the scheduled hearing is not reasonable and not a sufficient reason to grant an adjournment.

10The Tribunal has not, as yet, received a response from the respondents to the applicant’s adjournment request. However, I do not need to know whether the respondents oppose the applicant’s request or not in this instance.

11For all of the above reasons the applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied.