Darlene Damassia-Correa v. Coin Co. International PLC, 2011 HRTO 2191

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darlene Damassia-Correa Applicant

-and-

Coin Co. International PLC Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: December 6, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2191 Indexed As: Damassia-Correa v. Coin Co. International PLC

1This Interim Decision addresses the Respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for December 14, 15, and 16, 2011. This request is denied.

BACKGROUND

2This Application was filed with the Tribunal on October 28, 2009. On July 5, 2011, the parties were advised that the hearing was scheduled for December 14, 15 and 16, 2011. In the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, the parties were further advised that all requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling which reads as follows:

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

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

4On November 30, 2011, the Respondent provided detailed witness summaries for the two witnesses it intends to call at the hearing, Ms. Tuck and Mr. Billings.

5On December 5, 2011, counsel for the Respondent requested an adjournment of the December hearing dates. Counsel advised that one of his “major witnesses,” Ms. Tuck, could not travel from her office in the United Kingdom to attend the hearing because of medical reasons. Counsel advised further that Ms. Tuck is the individual who made the decision to terminate the Applicant’s employment. Counsel did not advise when he anticipated Ms. Tuck would be able to attend the hearing.

6The inability of a single witness to attend a three-day hearing does not constitute exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment of the entire hearing. The fact that Ms. Tuck cannot travel to attend the hearing does not prevent the Applicant from calling her case or the Respondent from calling its case, with the exception of Ms. Tuck. Furthermore, it may be possible to file the witness statement of Ms. Tuck and have any additional evidence, both direct and cross examination, heard by way of teleconference.

7At the commencement of the hearing on December 14, 2011, I will hear the parties’ submissions on the filing of Ms. Tuck’s witness statement and proceeding by way of teleconference for the remainder of her evidence. A decision on this question will be made that day. In the event I determine that Ms. Tuck is required to attend in person to give her evidence, the hearing will be adjourned to hear her evidence at a later date.

8Having considered and balanced the interests of the parties and the Tribunal’s process, the adjournment request is denied.

Order

9The hearing will proceed as scheduled on December 14-16, 2011.