HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mike Kirlew
Applicant
-and-
Durham Condominium Corporation No. 139
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Indexed As: Kirlew v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 139
1In this Application under s.34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, age and reprisal with respect to housing.
2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for January 9 and 10, 2012.
3On July 12, 2011, the parties were advised that the hearing of the Application was scheduled for January 9 and 10, 2012. The Notice of Hearing was mailed to the applicant at the address provided by him to the Tribunal and was not returned. Among other things, the Notice of Hearing advised the parties in detail of their pre-hearing disclosure obligations pursuant the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and provided deadlines for such disclosure.
4On December 20, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction in this matter noting that the parties had not complied with their obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to provide the Tribunal and each other the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing of the Application, their lists of witnesses and will-say statements for those witnesses no later than 45 days before the first scheduled day of hearing. The Tribunal directed the parties to comply with their disclosure obligations immediately, and in any event by no later than December 30, 2011. The Tribunal advised the parties of the potential consequences of their failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions.
5On December 21, 2011, the applicant emailed the Tribunal to inquire about the possibility of adjourning the January 2012 hearing so that he would have additional time to negotiate with the respondent to resolve the Application. In his email, the applicant also indicated that he had been unaware of the Tribunal’s Rules regarding disclosure of documents and witness statements prior to receiving the Case Assessment Direction.
6On December 22, 2011, the applicant emailed the Tribunal again requesting an adjournment of the January 2012 hearing dates. In his December 22, 2011 email, the applicant indicates that he never received the Tribunal’s July 2011 Notice of Hearing and that since receiving the Tribunal’s December 20, 2011 Case Assessment Direction by email, he has been “frantically” trying to figure out how to proceed in this matter. He also indicates that he has very little time to prepare and contact his witnesses, particularly with the intervening holiday season. The applicant reiterates his desire for additional time so that he can try to resolve the Application with the respondent without the necessity of litigation.
7The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied.
8Based on the applicant’s emails of December 21 and 22, 2011, it seems that the main reason for the applicant’s request for an adjournment is his desire to have additional time to negotiate with the respondent. This is not a basis upon which to grant the applicant’s request for an adjournment. While the applicant’s desire to resolve the Application without the necessity of litigation is laudable, the Tribunal generally does not adjourn scheduled hearing dates in order to afford the parties additional time during which to pursue settlement discussions. In fact, the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:
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 may request mediation/adjudication in accordance with Rule 15A (and Rule 8A and 17A for s. 53(3) and s. 53(5) applications). However, the HRTO discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement.
9Moreover, even if the applicant was not aware of the January 2012 hearing prior to receiving the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction, the applicant does not indicate that he is unable to attend the hearing and to testify on his own behalf or that there are specific witnesses he wishes to call who are not available to testify on the scheduled dates. Nor does the applicant indicate that he is unable to prepare his will-say statements and compile his documents by the deadline established by the Tribunal in its December 20, 2011 Case Assessment Direction. The applicant simply indicates that he has to hurry to prepare for the hearing. In my view, that is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying the adjournment of the hearing. Moreover, I cannot see any reason why the applicant should not be able to prepare will-say statements for himself and the other witnesses he intends to call in support of the allegations he has made in his Application, or to provide the documents upon which he intends to rely at the hearing, by December 30, 2011.
10Nonetheless, in the circumstances, I am prepared to grant the applicant some additional time for the filing of his documents and will-say statements. The applicant has until 12:00 noon on January 4, 2012, to file with the Tribunal, and to deliver to the respondent, the documents upon which he intends to rely at the hearing, and will-say statements for himself and any other witnesses he wishes to call. These materials should be provided to the Tribunal and the respondent by fax and/or email.
11In the meantime, the parties are encouraged to continue their efforts to resolve the Application before the scheduled hearing dates in the event that the litigation may be avoided. Obviously, the parties are not required to provide their documents and will-say statements to each other or to the Tribunal if the Application is resolved before the deadlines set for such disclosure.
Order
12The hearing will proceed as scheduled on January 9 and 10, 2012.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of December, 2011.
“Signed by”
Sheri D. Price
Vice-chair