John Villella v. Corporation of the City of Brampton and Susan Bauman, 2011 HRTO 147

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Villella

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the City of Brampton and Susan Bauman

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: January 20, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 147

Indexed as: Villella v. Brampton (City)

1The applicant filed an Application on August 28, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in the areas of goods, services and facilities, employment and contracts on the basis of record of offences.

2In a Case Assessment Direction, dated August 16, 2010, the Tribunal directed that the matter be scheduled for a summary hearing by way of teleconference, pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, in order to determine whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. The summary hearing was scheduled for January 20, 2011.

3On January 19, 2011, shortly after 8:00 a.m., the Tribunal received correspondence from a representative of the respondent City, stating:

I received a message overnight that (…) Legal Counsel for the City’s Litigation and Administrative Law Division is away from the office owing to a family medical emergency. The situation is declining very quickly and is quite critical now. [We are] prepared to provide medical documentation to support this request.

4Adjournment requests, especially eleventh-hour requests, are not granted automatically and will only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances. Where a party seeks an adjournment, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises and, if practicable, they should contact the other party to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates.

5It appears the respondents’ email was not copied to the applicant and there is no indication that the parties discussed consent to the adjournment or the availability of alternative dates. The applicant has raised concerns about the respondents’ compliance with the Tribunal’s directions and Rules both in terms of the late adjournment request, and with respect to their pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

6In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal stated as follows:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it… 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 that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

7The respondents’ request cites exigent personal circumstances. The Tribunal does not ordinarily require evidence in support of such requests. Intentionally misleading the Tribunal is a serious matter with potential consequences for the offending party. The assumption is that parties provide truthful information to the Tribunal.

8A medical emergency involving counsel’s family member is an exceptional situation. Such emergencies cause inconvenience beyond the control of any one person or institution. It is impossible to guarantee that emergencies will not arise, and it is reasonable to expect all parties, including the Tribunal, to shoulder some burden in meeting the demands caused by veritable emergencies. This expectation is not, however, limitless.

9Parties must each assume primary responsibility in preparing for contingencies and having alternative arrangements in place to deal with unanticipated events arising from within their ranks. The respondent City is a large, public organization that should have the institutional capacity and resources to ensure that it has representation in these proceedings as scheduled.

10In light of the above, the adjournment request is granted. However, the respondents are cautioned that the re-scheduled hearing date shall be peremptory on them in respect of representation, meaning that no further adjournment will be granted due to the unavailability of counsel.

11Regarding the applicant’s objections to the respondents’ “late” filing of case law, the CAD directed the parties to file cases and documents on which they rely at least seven days prior to the hearing. The deadline, therefore, was January 13, 2011 (counting backwards including the last day but not the first, as per Rule 1.9). The respondents filed their material electronically at 5:17 p.m. on January 13, 2011. The applicant claims he has suffered “serious prejudice”. In the absence of further detail, this is not on its face a credible claim. In any event, the granting of this adjournment will minimize the harm to the applicant and give him ample time to review the material. I deny his request that the respondents be prevented from relying on the cases.

12The Registrar shall re-schedule the half-day hearing for as early as possible. If there are any dates in February, March or April that any party or counsel is not available for hearing, such dates must be communicated to the Registrar within three days of this Interim Decision.