Dalinda v. Brookfield Residential Services Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1054

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Luke Dalinda

Applicant

-and-

Brookfield Residential Services Ltd., Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No 1053 and Sandra England

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 28, 2012

Indexed as: Dalinda v. Brookfield Residential Services Ltd.,

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of family status, age as well as reprisal.

2A hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 4 and 5. On May 4, 2012 the respondent, Brookfield Residential Services Ltd. ("Brookfield"), requested that it be adjourned. This request was renewed on May 8, 2012. The reason given for the request is that counsel for Brookfield is going to be out of the country on the days which have been scheduled for the hearing. The applicant opposes the adjournment.

3The Tribunal's Information Bulletin on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within five (5) days or receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. In addition the Information Bulletin contemplates that alternate dates will be offered by the party seeking the adjournment. Moreover, it indicates that hearings will not be rescheduled merely because the date is inconvenient for the parties or their representatives.

4In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4, the Tribunal held:

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.

5The parties were notified of the hearing into this matter on February 21, 2012. The request for an adjournment is made well beyond the five days after the notice of the hearing. Brookfield has not offered alternate dates. The reason for the request for adjournment lacks any particulars. There is no assertion, for example, that the plans to be out of the country cannot be altered. The request for adjournment cites no exceptional circumstances that justify an adjournment in accordance with the Tribunal's policies and jurisprudence.

6The request for adjournment is denied.