HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marie Mathurin

Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada and Clare Lewis

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: June 1, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1045

Indexed as: Mathurin v. Law Society of Upper Canada

wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Marie Mathurin, Applicant ) Self-represented

1This is an Application filed February 18, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated November 3, 2010, the Tribunal directed a Summary Hearing in this matter. The Tribunal scheduled the Summary Hearing to be held on January 17, 2011, by conference call. The Tribunal agreed to the Applicant’s request to re-schedule the Summary Hearing in Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 2373. Accordingly, the Tribunal notified the parties by letter dated February 17, 2011, that the re-scheduled Summary Hearing would be heard on June 1, 2011, by conference call.

[3] By letter dated May 27, 2011, the applicant requested a further two week postponement of the Summary Hearing. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider this request.

Decision

4For the reasons which follow, the request for postponement is denied and the Summary Hearing shall proceed as scheduled on June 1, 2011.

5The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments gives parties the following direction regarding requests to reschedule hearings:

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.

If the parties are unable to agree on alternative dates, the party asking that the hearing be rescheduled must contact the HRTO Registrar in writing, copied to the other parties, and provide five alternative dates (or blocks of dates if the hearing is scheduled for multiple days) that are within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled hearing date(s). This must be done within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. The HRTO will contact the other parties to try to find mutually agreeable dates. If, after a reasonable number of attempts, the parties are unable to agree on dates, the HRTO will set the dates for the hearing without agreement of the parties.

Requests for Adjournments

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.

The applicant’s request obviously comes outside of the 14-day period described in the Practice Direction and it would appear, based on the applicant’s letter, that the respondents oppose the request.

6The applicant states that she needs more time to prepare for the Summary Hearing and indicates that she is more prepared to deal with the Summary Hearing scheduled regarding another Application filed by the applicant involving related issues. The applicant also notes that she has located people to assist her with the Summary Hearing, but they will not be available until after the week of June 1, 2011. In any event, the applicant seems to state that she will not be ready for two weeks with or without assistance.

7The applicant has been aware that the Tribunal would hold a Summary Hearing in this matter since mid-November 2010 and the Tribunal has already granted a lengthy postponement. The applicant has had ample time to prepare for the Summary Hearing in this matter and her state of readiness regarding another Application is irrelevant. Consequently, I find that exceptional circumstances justifying postponement do not exist.

8The applicant’s request is denied the Summary Hearing shall proceed as scheduled on June 1, 2011.

9I am not seized of this matter.