Sutherland v. District School Board Ontario North East, 2011 HRTO 771

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Theresa Sutherland

Applicant

-and-

District School Board Ontario North East

Respondent

-and-

Wahgoshig First Nation

Intervenor

A N D B E T W E E N:

Diane Plourde

Applicant

-and-

District School Board Ontario North East

Respondent

-and-

Wahgoshig First Nation

Intervenor

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: April 19, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 771

Indexed as: Sutherland v. District School Board Ontario North East

1These Applications were filed in June 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the parties’ Request for an adjournment of the hearing in this matter, which currently is scheduled to proceed in Timmins on May 2, 2011.

3By letter dated April 19, 2011, counsel for the applicants wrote to request an adjournment of the hearing on consent to allow for ongoing settlement negotiations, as well as to request a postponement on consent for the parties to file their witness statements in advance of the hearing. It was proposed that, should the parties fail to reach a settlement agreement, they subsequently would request a new hearing date from the Tribunal.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing (. . .) 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 ad 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.

5As stated above, the Tribunal expressly will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, even where the request for adjournment is on consent. If the parties are able to reach a settlement prior to the hearing date, then they can complete and file a Form TR-10 Confirmation of Settlement, and the hearing will be cancelled. Alternatively, the parties may agree to pursue mediation/adjudication on the date of the hearing.

6As a result, the Request for adjournment is denied, and the hearing will proceed as scheduled in Timmins on May 2, 2011, unless the parties file a Form TR-10 in advance of the scheduled hearing date. The Tribunal is prepared to extend the time for delivery of the parties’ witness statements to Wednesday, April 27, 2011.