C.F. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1012

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.F. by his next friend F.F.

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Caroline Rowan

Decision Date: May 18, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1012

Indexed as: C.F. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

Appearances

C.F. by his next friend F.F., Applicant

Selwyn Pieters, Counsel, in person

Toronto Catholic District School Board, Respondent

Sharon Duffy, Counsel, via teleconference

1This Application was scheduled before the Tribunal at 9:30 a.m. on May 11, 2012. At that time, neither the responding party, nor a representative of the responding party, were in attendance at the hearing. The Tribunal accordingly stood down the hearing for the normal 30 minutes.

2Shortly after standing down, the Tribunal was advised that Paul Mathews, the respondent’s counsel handling this matter, had been struck by illness that morning and that the respondent was accordingly seeking an adjournment of the hearing to an alternate date. This message was conveyed by telephone to the Tribunal’s office by Mr. Mathews’ administrative assistant, who also indicated at that time that Mr. Mathews was himself too ill to communicate by telephone with the Tribunal that morning.

3Since the applicant did not consent to the adjournment request, arrangements were made to convene a teleconference with Sharon Duffy, who is also in-house counsel with the respondent, and who would speak to the respondent’s adjournment request. After entertaining submissions from both Ms. Duffy and Selwyn Pieters, counsel for the applicant, the Tribunal orally granted the adjournment request, ruling as follows:

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to grant the respondent’s adjournment request in view of the sudden, unexpected illness of the respondent’s counsel this morning. However, in all of the circumstances of this case, including the respondent’s agreement that a new hearing date may be set as soon as possible and on a peremptory basis to the respondent, the Tribunal so orders. The Registrar is accordingly directed to set this matter down for a new hearing as soon as possible in consultation with the applicant.

4This Application is accordingly referred to the Registrar to re-list for hearing. I am not seized.