Annasta Campbell-Clarke v. Taylor Manufacturing Industries Inc. and Kiet Luong, 2011 HRTO 1061

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Annasta Campbell-Clarke

Applicant

-and-

Taylor Manufacturing Industries Inc. and Kiet Luong

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: June 2, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1061

Indexed as: Clarke v. Taylor Manufacturing Industries

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The applicant seeks an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for June 6, 2011 “due to circumstances beyond [her] control.” She provides no other reason for her request. The applicant’s request was e-mailed to the Tribunal on June 1, 2011, and she has not confirmed that a copy of her request was delivered to the respondents. However, regardless of whether there is consent, the adjournment would be inappropriate and it is denied.

2The Tribunal’s Practice Directions and case law are clear that adjournments will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments reads in relevant part as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or 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.

Where a party seeks to adjourn a previously scheduled mediation or hearing, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises. They must contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates for the rescheduling of the mediation or hearing.

The party making the request should contact the Registrar and provide the exceptional circumstances supporting the request and any alternative agreed upon dates. Where the request is on short notice, the party must contact the Registrar by email or fax.

3In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534 (“Vallentyne”) at para. 4 the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used. (…) The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

4The applicant has provided no explanation as to why she is unavailable on June 6, 2011 that could amount to exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

5The adjournment is denied, and the parties must be prepared to present their evidence and argue their case at the hearing scheduled for June 6, 2011.

6I am not seized.