HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jacques Perron
Complainant
-and-
Yvonne Monto
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Anne McKellar
Indexed as: Perron v. Monto
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jacques Perron, Applicant ) J. Richard Forget, Counsel
Yvonne Monto, Respondent ) Jeff Rooney, Representative
1This Interim Decision deals with the Request of the applicant, Jacques Perron ("the applicant"), that the hearing in this matter scheduled for April 15, 2011 be adjourned.
2This is not the applicant's first Request for an adjournment of this hearing. Two Case Assessment Directions ("CADs") and two Interim Decisions, 2011 HRTO 606 and 2011 HRTO 668, have been issued with respect to his repeated Requests since February 22, 2011 that the hearing be adjourned, and that he be excused from pre-hearing filing requirements.
3The adjournment Request is grounded in the applicant's medical condition. The Tribunal's refusal to adjourn the matter to date has been predicated on the inadequacy of the medical information that has been filed in support of it.
4The applicant has now retained counsel, who has repeated the Request for an adjournment, and has advised the Tribunal that the applicant is gravely ill, and has an appointment with a specialist this week. Counsel further advises that he is, in any event, scheduled for a hearing elsewhere on April 15, 2011. Counsel states that he would also like an opportunity to speak to the respondent's representative.
5The respondent's representative objects to the adjournment. Given the applicant's conduct to date, (described in greater detail in the earlier Interim Decisions), he is suspicious that the applicant is simply seeking to prolong this matter indefinitely and has no real intention of ever proceeding to hearing. The respondent's representative has indicated that he does not wish to speak with the applicant's counsel except in relation to the hearing of this matter. I note, however, that in response to the applicant's earlier Request for an adjournment of the hearing, the respondent was prepared to consent, so long as the applicant remained subject to the pre-hearing filing requirements.
6The Tribunal's Practice Direction respecting adjournment requests provides as follows:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or 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.
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.
7If the applicant is truly too ill to attend (or participate through some electronic means), then this hearing must be adjourned, regardless of the lateness of the Request. In the circumstances of this case, however, I am not prepared simply to accept the applicant's or his counsel's assertion that he is too ill. Third-party documentation is required not only to substantiate the necessity for the adjournment, but to permit the Tribunal to re-schedule the hearing, with appropriate accommodation, if necessary.
8I am prepared to adjourn this matter on condition that the applicant file the following with the Tribunal and the respondent's representative by Thursday, April 21, 2011:
(a) the name of his medical specialist and the date of the appointment;
(b) detailed information from that specialist respecting when the applicant might be expected to be medically fit to participate in a hearing, either in person or electronically, and what specific accommodations might be required;
(c) a list of at least 10 dates mutually available to the applicant and the respondent within the six-week period immediately following the date identified as commencing the period in which the applicant is anticipated to be able to participate in a hearing; and
(d) the information he was directed to file in paragraph 5(b) of the conference call memorandum dated December 2, 2010, specifically the identification or production of documents on which he intends to rely as well as detailed witness statements for those witnesses from whom he intends to elicit evidence about: whether the respondent revealed his sexual orientation; to whom it was revealed; and in what circumstances; including the basis of each witness' knowledge.
9The respondent's representative is directed to communicate with the applicant's counsel for the purpose of determining mutually available dates for a rescheduled hearing.
10The consequences of any failure by the applicant to comply fully and in a timely manner with the above directions may include the termination of this Application.
11I remain seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of April, 2011
"signed by"___________
Mary Anne Mckellar
Vice-chair