Co.K. v. Ontario Hockey Federation, 2011 HRTO 1296

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Co.K. by his next friend P.K.

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Hockey Federation and Hockey Canada

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: July 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1296

Indexed as: Co.K. v. Ontario Hockey Federation

1The hearing in this Application is scheduled for July 12, 2011. By email correspondence of today’s date, the applicant has requested an adjournment, stating that he realizes he needs legal assistance. He states that the lawyer who was helping him pro bono is unable to assist him right now and a co-applicant has just advised that he is away on July 12. He also states that as his is the lead case for five other related applications, he is effectively acting on behalf of other applicants, but is facing issues in communicating with all of them before the hearing date.

2The respondents oppose the adjournment request. Among other things, they rely on the history of the scheduling of this matter, which has been done on agreement, and also state that one of their representatives has made arrangements to come to Toronto from Ottawa for the July 12 hearing.

3The request to adjourn the hearing is denied.

4The date for this hearing has been known to the parties since February 16, 2011, when it was set during a conference call with the agreement of the parties. During that conference call, I also ruled on the applicant’s request to proceed with his Application as the lead case, taking into account the applicant’s willingness to take on this role, and to meet the Tribunal’s deadlines and attend the hearing as required.

5Although during that conference call and two subsequent ones the applicant was assisted by counsel, counsel did indicate that she was participating for the purposes of the conference calls only and did not anticipate representing the applicant at the hearing.

6None of the factors cited by the applicant in support of his request are extraordinary or unexpected. I note that at the very outset, when the Application was first made, the applicant wished to have it expedited, a request that the Tribunal denied. It is in the interests of the parties that the matter be resolved and I do not find it fair, just or expeditious to grant the request to delay the hearing.

7The hearing will therefore proceed on July 12.