HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
J.B.
Applicant
-and-
Toronto District School Board
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
C.F.
Applicant
-and-
Toronto District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: J.B. v. Toronto District School Board
1These Applications were filed May 1, 2009, under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) filed by the respondent seeking the adjournment of these Applications. The applicants oppose the Request.
2The basis for the Request is that the respondent has told its counsel that he may not cross-examine a proposed witness, S.P., who is a Trustee of the respondent, and as a result, the respondent is required to retain new counsel for that purpose. No further explanation is provided.
3The hearing is scheduled to begin on May 30, 2011. S.P. was identified as a witness on March 23, 2011. The Request was filed on May 20, 2011.
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 ten-day period to request rescheduling of a 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, copied to the other parties.
5The adjournment request is denied. It is not at all clear what the basis is for the respondent’s position that its counsel can not cross-examine the proposed witness. There is nothing on the record to suggest that extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist to support the adjournment request. In the absence of any explanation for this instruction, there is no basis to grant the adjournment. I also note that there are likely to be several other witnesses called by the applicants, including of course the applicants themselves, and this case is not likely to be concluded in the one day scheduled. Quite aside from any other consideration it would be neither fair, just nor expeditious to grant an 11th-hour adjournment Request on the basis of a problem with one witness.
6I am seized of these Applications.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of May, 2011.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair