HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Annette Westgarth Applicant

-and-

The Great-West Life Assurance Company, Regional Municipality of Durham, Heather Hart & Pat Bramley Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha Date: February 24, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 405 Indexed as: Westgarth v. Great-West Life

[1] The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability contrary to section 5 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The respondents, The Great-West Life Assurance Company (“Great-West”), Heather Hart and Pat Bramley filed a joint Response and the respondent Regional Municipality of Durham (“Durham”) filed a separate Response. The applicant has filed a Reply.

[2] In a Case Assessment Direction issued on November 23, 2010, the Tribunal directed that a hearing by way of teleconference be scheduled to determine whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part, as a preliminary matter, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed if it goes to a hearing on the merits.

[3] A Notice of Summary Hearing, dated January 5, 2011, was sent to the parties setting February 24, 2011 as the hearing date. The parties were required to file documents and cases they intend to rely on one week before the hearing. All parties filed their documents on time.

[4] On February 22, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal, copied to the respondents, requesting an adjournment of the hearing on the basis of a medical emergency. On February 23, 2011, she filed supporting documentation from her healthcare professional attesting to the fact that the applicant was hospitalized on February 20, 2011 and remains in discomfort and under medical supervision.

[5] The respondents are aware of the applicant’s request and circumstances. None have taken a position with respect to the adjournment request.

[6] Adjournment requests are not granted automatically and will only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances. Where a party seeks an adjournment, they must contact the Registrar as soon as the need arises and, if practicable, they should contact the other parties to seek their consent, and to discuss alternative dates. The Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, states the following regarding requests for adjournment:

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.

[7] I am satisfied that the applicant has experienced a serious medical issue amounting to exceptional circumstances, recalling that the purpose of the hearing is for the applicant to make the case for her Application to proceed to a full hearing. In the circumstances, an adjournment is warranted.

[8] The parties are directed to provide to the Tribunal available dates in April 2011.

Dated at Toronto, this 24^th^ day of February, 2011.

“signed by”

Faisal Bhabha

Vice-Chair