Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Alondra Galves
Applicant
-and-
Balzac’s Coffee Roastery Ltd. and Cathy Segeren
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Galves v. Balzac’s Coffee Roastery
1This Interim Decision deals with a request from the applicant’s counsel to reschedule a hearing.
REQUEST TO ADJOURN
2The applicant’s counsel requested in a letter dated December 14, 2010 that the hearing scheduled for March 22 and 23, 2011 be rescheduled on the basis that counsel was, it appears, just retained by the applicant and was not available on the scheduled hearing dates. The respondent has not responded to this Request.
3The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing in this matter was issued on November 16, 2010. The Tribunal’s current Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments (the “Practice Direction”) allows parties fourteen days after the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to request a rescheduling. A party requesting a rescheduling is encouraged to contact the other parties to agree on alternative dates that are mutually acceptable, or, if this is not possible, to propose five alternate dates within 12 weeks of the original scheduling hearing dates.
4The Request by the applicant’s counsel that the hearing be rescheduled dates from December 14, 2010 which is beyond the 14 day limit set out for such requests. The applicant’s counsel does not identify alternative dates for a hearing. As stated in Vallentyne v. Royal Canada Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources, including the Tribunal’s hearing times, are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has to balance the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with a broader public interest by requiring that a party advise the Tribunal within the time frame set out in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction if they are unavailable. Requests beyond this time limit will not be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.
5I am not satisfied that the rescheduling Request by the applicant’s counsel constitutes an exceptional circumstance. It appears counsel agreed to represent the applicant when he was aware that he may not be available at the time of the scheduled hearing. I am not persuaded under these circumstances that it is incumbent on the Tribunal to accommodate counsel’s conflict by rescheduling the hearing. I note that counsel has not communicated what his scheduling conflict might be.
6The parties were expected to disclose and file the documents they intended to rely on as well as provide witness lists and witness statements by February 4, 2011. They have not done so. The parties are directed to disclose and file these materials immediately.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of February, 2011.
”signed by”_______
Eric Whist
Vice-chair