Elizabeth Keep and Grant Dobson v. Shriner’s Creek Co-op, 2011 HRTO 240

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Elizabeth Keep and Grant Dobson Applicants

-and-

Shriner’s Creek Co-op Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: February 2, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 240 Indexed as: Keep v. Shriner’s Creek Co-op

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The Application is scheduled for a half-day Summary Hearing, to be held by teleconference on Friday, February 4, 2011 from 1:30-4:30 p.m. The applicants requested an adjournment of this summary hearing in a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) filed on January 27, 2011. The respondent objected to the request via written submissions on January 31, 2011, and the applicants filed further written submissions in support of their request on February 1, 2011.

2The applicants indicate that they require the adjournment because they have not yet secured counsel to represent them. It would appear, though this is by no means clear, that the applicants have been in touch with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, and that this contact has only been initiated in the last two weeks. The respondent points out that the applicants have had notice of the specific date of this summary hearing for two months, and should have sought counsel either then, or the month before when they were advised that there would be a summary hearing.

3The Notice of Summary Hearing, which was issued on December 3, 2010, states that adjournment requests will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, the relevant portion of which states:

Requests for adjournment, particularly last minute requests for adjournments are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice.

The Tribunal’s approach to scheduling and rescheduling mediations and hearings is designed to give the parties a fair opportunity to find suitable dates. Therefore, the Tribunal discourages adjournment requests, and will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative.

4The Notice also states:

If you are unavailable the date scheduled, you MUST contact the HRTO in writing, copied to the other parties, within 10 days of the date of this Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and provide 5 alternative dates on which you are available within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled date

5The applicants have clearly not complied with this requirement.

6In addition, the applicants state that they have a meeting with ODSP on February 4, 2011, that would conflict with the summary hearing. I would note, however, that the time for that meeting is 9:30, some four hours prior to the teleconference.

7I am not satisfied on the basis of the applicants’ reasons for their request that an adjournment is necessary or appropriate. The request is, therefore, denied.

8I am not seized.