Biega v. Management Research and Solutions Inc., 2011 HRTO 1649

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Biega

Applicant

-and-

Management Research & Solutions Inc., MRSI Benchmarking Inc., David Cook, Dan Regan and Lorraine Baudisch

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: September 6, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1649

Indexed as: Biega v. Management Research and Solutions Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Management Research & Solutions Inc., )

David Cook, Dan Regan and Lorraine Baudisch, ) Israel Balter,

Respondents ) Counsel

1A reconsideration hearing is scheduled in this Application for September 9, 2011 by teleconference. Counsel for the respondents other than MRSI Benchmarking Inc. has written to the Tribunal today, September 6, 2011 requesting an adjournment on the basis that he has just been retained and the adjournment request will not cause prejudice to the other parties.

2The Tribunal does not grant adjournments based on late retention of counsel absent exceptional circumstances. The Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments reads as follows:

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

The HRTO typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal.” The HRTO encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard. Where parties believe they may be able to resolve a matter shortly before the scheduled hearing, they should advise the Registrar and the HRTO may make a mediator and mediation room available. The parties may also request mediation/adjudication in accordance with Rule 15.2.1 (and Rule 8.5 for s. 53(3) and 53(5) applications). However, the HRTO discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement.

3In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at paras. 4-5 the Tribunal held:

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.

When a party makes a decision to retain counsel after the notice of hearing has been issued, their “choice” of counsel is limited by the date previously scheduled. The Application was commenced in September of 2008. The Notice of Hearing was issued on March 11, 2009. The Notice clearly indicated that requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin. Counsel, who practices at a large Toronto law firm, was retained in April 2009. The failure of a party to make arrangements for the hearing does not justify an adjournment: Pantoliano v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 570, 2009 HRTO 548.

4As there are no exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the Tribunal’s case law, the request for an adjournment is denied and the reconsideration hearing will proceed on September 9, 2011.