S.D. v. Grand River Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1861

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

S.D. Applicant

-and-

Grand River Hospital Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

S.D. Applicant

-and-

Grand River Hospital, Cathy Beebe and Pauline Potzold Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: October 13, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1861 Indexed as: S.D. v. Grand River Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

S.D., Applicant ) Self-represented

Reasons for Decision

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the summary hearing scheduled for October 18, 2011.

2On August 8, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2011. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of the date of the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness or representative.

3The applicant sent the Tribunal an e-mail on September 11, 2011, which requested an adjournment of the hearing for the following reasons: (1) she lives and works with a disability, (2) she currently holds two jobs, and has been asked to do overtime that is important for career advancement, and (3) she is facing family issues.

4The applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing is denied. Reasons 1) and 3) are too vague to justify delaying the hearing, and reason 2) is not an “extraordinary” circumstance that justifies delaying the hearing.

5If the applicant does not call into the teleconference hearing on October 18, 2011, the Tribunal may dismiss her Application as abandoned.

6As these two cases relate to S.D. v. Grand River Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1653, the Tribunal will continue to anonymize the applicant’s name in order to protect the integrity of the sealing order in that case.