Ford v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 2260

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Ford

Applicant

• and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: December 16, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2260

Indexed as: Ford v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mark Ford, Applicant ) Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario )

as represented by the Minister of ) Jinan A. Kubursi, Counsel

Community Safety and Correctional Services, )

Respondent )

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 respondent seeks the adjournment of the summary hearing scheduled for January 30, 2012. The adjournment request is denied.

BACKGROUND

2The Application was filed with the Tribunal on September 23, 2010.

3On October 31, 2011, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Summary Hearing. That Notice scheduled the hearing for January 30, 2012. It noted, on the first page, that requests for adjournment would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments available on the HRTO’s website.

4By email dated November 29, 2011, counsel for the respondent wrote to the Registrar, copied to the applicant, to request an adjournment of the scheduled date, stating that a scheduling conflict has arisen for counsel. The email indicated that attempts had been made to reach the applicant to discuss the request for an adjournment, but that he had not responded to their email, he had moved, and the respondents were unable at that time to find any other address for him. At the date of the respondent’s email, the Tribunal had not received any communication from the Applicant regarding the request for an adjournment.

5In the circumstances described by the respondent, it was not entirely clear that the applicant was continuing to pursue his Application, and it was not evident that the respondent or the Tribunal had been provided with the most recent contact information from him. Of course, if the applicant had abandoned his Application, adjournment and rescheduling to another date would have been unnecessary. A Case Assessment Direction (CAD) was issued on December 7, 2011, directing the applicant to provide a response to the respondent’s request to adjourn and advising him that if he failed to do so within seven days, his application may be dismissed as abandoned. The CAD indicated that the Tribunal would consider the respondent’s request for an adjournment following receipt of the applicant’s response.

6In the interim, however, the applicant had in fact sent an email to counsel for the respondent, copying the Tribunal, indicating his consent to an adjournment and providing an alternate date. This email had not come to my attention.

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.

9Counsel for the respondent has simply indicated that a “scheduling conflict” has arisen. Parties are provided with a time period of fourteen days from the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to provide alternate dates if they are unable to attend the scheduled hearing date. The respondent did not make its request for an adjournment until November 29, 2011. This late request would suggest that the scheduling conflict arose after the expiration of the fourteen day period for requesting rescheduling. Counsel for the respondent has described nothing exceptional about the apparently recent “scheduling conflict”. Though the applicant has indicated his consent to adjourn, as there is no indication of any exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment, it is denied. The summary hearing will proceed on the date scheduled.

10I am not seized of this matter.