Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1485

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cyril Pazhaidam

Applicant

-and-

North York General Hospital and Service Employees International Union, Local 1

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: August 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1485

Indexed as: Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a request by the respondent union to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates.

2On May 6, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing indicating that the hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 3 and 4, 2011 at the Tribunal’s Hearing Centre in Toronto. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing stated, if the hearing dates were unsuitable, that parties were required to consult each other with respect to alternate dates and advise the Tribunal in writing within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing if parties were unable to agree on alternate dates. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing expressly noted that any requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments (“Practice Direction”).

3On June 29, 2011, the respondent union wrote to the Tribunal and advised that it is not available to proceed with the hearing as currently scheduled and requested that the Tribunal adjourn the October hearing dates. The respondent union indicated that it was in the process of consulting with the other parties to determine their respective availability and would contact the Tribunal shortly.

4On July 12, 2011, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and indicated receipt of the respondent union’s request to adjourn the hearing dates. The Tribunal noted that the respondent union’s request was made outside the timeline established in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (specifically, beyond 14 days from May 6, 2011), no exceptional circumstances were indicated in support of the request to adjourn as required by the Practice Direction and that, despite stating in its June 29, 2011 correspondence that it would provide mutually agreeable dates, the respondent union failed to do so. The Tribunal directed the respondent union to provide its submissions with respect to exceptional circumstances and mutually agreeable alternate dates by July 19, 2011.

5The respondent union has failed to file submissions supporting its request for adjournment and no other party has filed submissions with respect to this issue.

6With respect to requests for adjournments, the Tribunal’s Practice Direction states:

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. (emphasis added)

7In 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. 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. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. 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.

8Other than indicating that it is “unavailable to proceed”, the respondent union has provided no reason for its request for adjournment. A conflict in schedule, without more in the way of explanation, does not constitute the type of extraordinary circumstances as set out in the Practice Direction that warrant an adjournment particularly when the request was made beyond the Tribunal’s timeline.

9Neither the respondent union, nor the other parties, has cited any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that justify the rescheduling of the hearing at this stage. As such, the hearing will proceed on October 3 and 4, 2011.

ORDER

10Accordingly, the request for adjournment is denied.