HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeffrey Stark
Applicant
-and-
The Niagara Parks Commission
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Lorne Slotnick
Indexed as: Stark v. Niagara Parks Commission
1This Application is scheduled to be heard by conference call on April 29, 2011.
2I issued an Interim Decision dated April 27, 2011 denying a Request by the applicant to adjourn the hearing date. The applicant had made the request in an email message that was dated April 22, the Good Friday holiday. I ruled that the Request did not meet the Tribunal’s test of “extraordinary circumstances” where the adjournment request is made more than 14 days after the Tribunal’s notice of hearing.
3At the time of the Interim Decision I was unaware of correspondence to the Tribunal on behalf of the respondent. A letter dated April 26, 2011 advised that the respondent had changed counsel on this and other matters, and that the respondent agreed with the applicant’s Request for an adjournment of the April 29 hearing. A further letter from respondent’s new counsel, dated April 27 and written after receipt of my Interim Decision, requests an adjournment because “we have only today received voluminous file materials from previous counsel, despite everyone’s best efforts.”
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides that rescheduling requests must be made within 14 days of the Tribunal’s notice of hearing, and that adjournments will only be granted in “extraordinary circumstances.” In this case, Tribunal notices were dated December 8, 2010 and March 9, 2011.
5Neither the applicant’s nor the respondent’s Requests comply with the Tribunal’s policy. The Tribunal has ruled that requests for adjournment made on consent may be denied, and that unavailability of newly retained counsel is not sufficient grounds for an adjournment. See Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660.
6However, in the circumstances of this case, I see no benefit in forcing the parties to proceed with the hearing on April 29. I note that the matter has not been mediated, and that the respondent indicates it is prepared to do so, a change from an earlier position. A review of the file reveals that there also appears to be some confusion over whether the hearing was to deal with preliminary issues only or the entire application.
7Given that the respondent has new counsel who has apparently not had a chance to review the file, that both parties have requested an adjournment, and that there is a willingness on both sides to attempt mediation, the Tribunal will grant the adjournment.
8The parties should contact the Tribunal to schedule a mediation or hearing date.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto this 28th day of April, 2011.
”signed by”__________
Lorne Slotnick
Member