HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lizhi Yu
Applicant
-and-
Karen Longhurst
Respondent
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Yu v. Longhurst
INTRODUCTION
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant seeks the adjournment of the summary hearing scheduled for October 4, 2011. The adjournment request is denied.
BACKGROUND
2The Application was filed with the Tribunal on March 3, 2010.
3On February 25, 2011, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing for July 4 and 5, 2011. On consent the parties sought to reschedule this hearing date.
4On March 31, 2011, after canvassing the parties’ availability and on consent, the Tribunal sent a notice rescheduling the hearing for October 4 and 5, 2011.
5On May 12, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction granting the respondent’s request for a summary hearing. The in-person hearing scheduled for October 4 and 5, 2011, was cancelled, and converted to a half-day summary hearing by teleconference to be held on October 4, 2011.
6In an e-mail dated September 5, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Registrar requesting an adjournment of the October 4, 2011 summary hearing. In this e-mail the applicant states, “also can you rescheduling (sic) the hearing date from October to December? Because probably I will go to China during October”.
DECISION
7The Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule 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.
8In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, 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. 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.
9The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional reasons for the requested adjournment. Indeed, in the case of Serova v. Ontario Ironworkers/Rodman Benefits Plan Administrators Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1339, an untimely request for an adjournment was denied even though the respondent was scheduled to attend an out of town conference on the date of the scheduled hearing. In this case the applicant has ample time to ensure that the trip to China is not scheduled on October 4, 2011, and does not otherwise interfere with the scheduled hearing.
10As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment, the Tribunal denies the adjournment request. The summary hearing will proceed on October 4, 2011. The parties are reminded that they must deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases they intend to rely upon no later than 14 days prior to the teleconference summary hearing.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of September, 2011.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair