D.F. v. University of Ottawa, 2011 HRTO 1051

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

D.F. by his litigation guardian W.F.

Applicant

-and-

University of Ottawa

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

S.F. by his litigation guardian W.F.

Applicant

-and-

University of Ottawa

Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: June 1, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1051

Indexed as: D.F. v. University of Ottawa

1These are two Applications made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19 as amended, (the “Code”), both dated January 8, 2009. The underlying complaints were both filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on January 3, 2007.

2The purpose of this Interim decision is to address a request by the applicants to adjourn a telephone conference call to address a preliminary issue identified in 2011 HRTO 1025 and deal with the issue by way of written submissions. The preliminary issue to be considered is whether the applicants can establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of age in light of the definition of age in the Code. The applicants have also alleged discrimination on the basis of family status. The other preliminary issue relates to the claim of discrimination on the basis of family status as there appear to be no facts pleaded by the applicants that would support a finding of discrimination on that ground.

3The reason for the request is that the applicants’ counsel has been called to a Federal Court matter on the date set for the telephone conference and a number of further dates through June and July. Applicant’s counsel advises that he has attempted to obtain an adjournment of the Federal Court matter to no avail. The applicants have asked that the matter be dealt with in writing and that they be given a further two weeks to deliver and file written submissions. Alternatively the applicants indicate that if this matter can not be dealt with in writing that it be adjourned to a date after July 11, 2011.

4The respondents object to the adjournment request citing the delays in getting to this point and the costs inherent with further delay. The respondents ask that the matter be dismissed. The respondents make no submissions that this matter can not be dealt with on the basis of written submissions.

5I am satisfied that the circumstance the applicants find themselves in is the kind of extraordinary circumstances contemplated by the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on adjournments. There is no basis to dismiss these Applications at this stage. I also see no reason why this matter can not be dealt with by way of written submissions and take the request of the applicant to be a waiver of their right to make oral submissions. What little delay will result from the granting of this request will be of little consequence to the respondents.

6Accordingly the telephone conference call scheduled for June 3, 2011 is cancelled. The parties will provide their written submissions on the issues outlined above on the following schedule:

a) The applicants will deliver and file their written submissions on or before June 17, 2011.

b) The respondent will deliver and file its submissions within 14 days of receipt of the applicants’ submissions.

7I am not seized of this case.