Singh v. Common Collection Agency Inc., 2012 HRTO 1024

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Casandra Singh

Applicant

-and-

Common Collection Agency Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Decision Date: May 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1024

Indexed as: Singh v. Common Collection Agency Inc.

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing which is scheduled for June 8, 2012. The hearing was scheduled for this date further to Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (“the Notice”) issued by the Tribunal on December 7, 2011.

2On May 17, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the June 8 hearing date because her representative is unavailable on that date because he has another court date set on the same date. The applicant requests that the Tribunal reschedule the hearing to a later date “preferably at the end of September or early October”. The applicant states that she would not feel comfortable without her representative being present during her hearing.

3The respondent has not responded to the applicant’s adjournment request.

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

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.

5In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 4, the Tribunal explained why, even when there is consent, an adjournment of a scheduled hearing will not be granted absent exceptional circumstances:

The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of proceedings before it. It expects to receive thousands of applications each year. The Tribunal has a responsibility to ensure that public resources are used effectively to meet the demands of all parties before the Tribunal. Therefore, when an adjournment request is made, it is not only the interests of the parties to the particular proceeding must consider, but the fact that Tribunal time reserved for the resolution of those parties’ dispute will no longer be used. For that reason, among others, the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments indicates that even adjournment requests made on consent of the parties more than five days after the hearing is scheduled may be denied. The Tribunal has balanced the interests of parties in having hearings scheduled according to their and counsel’s availability with these broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

6Absent exceptional circumstances, unavailability of counsel or a representative has not been viewed as a legitimate reason to grant an adjournment. See for example, Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534 at paragraph 6; and Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at paragraph 8.

7In this case, the parties have had notice of the hearing date for over five months since the Notice was issued on December 7, 2011. No information has been provided to explain why, with such lengthy notice, the applicant’s representative is now unavailable to attend the Tribunal’s hearing yet available to attend another court matter.

8Accordingly, I do not find that the applicant has established exceptional circumstances to grant the adjournment request. Accordingly, her request is denied and the hearing will continue as scheduled for June 8, 2012.