Pidgeon v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 106

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Judith Pidgeon

Applicant

-and-

College of Nurses of Ontario, Amanda Achtymichuk, Faira Bari, Anne Coghlan, Catherine Genereux, Kimberly Germain, Jenna Hofbauer, Melissa Jeethan, Shirley Kennedy, Risa Kirshblum, Anne McKenzie, Cara Moroney, Prudence Morton, Lucy O’Hearn-Grant, Johanna Braden and April Ferreira

Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: January 16, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 106

Indexed as: Pidgeon v. College of Nurses of Ontario

Written Submissions

Judith Pidgeon, Applicant ) Self-Represented

College of Nurses of Ontario, Respondent ) Raj Anand, Counsel

1This Application is scheduled for summary hearing by teleconference on February 16, 2012. The applicant seeks an adjournment and requests that the summary hearing be heard in person in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

2The respondents oppose both requests.

3The applicant states in her submission that she is currently a student and would prefer to have the hearing scheduled during her spring break in March, 2012. She indicates that February 16, 2012 is “not a good time”. In addition, she argues that she should be able to “face her accusers in person” and that it will be necessary for a number of witnesses to testify at the hearing.

4Having read the applicant’s submission there appears to be a need to clarify the purpose of the summary hearing process. The Tribunal set the matter down for a summary hearing on its own initiative by Case Conference Direction (CAD) dated September 15, 2011. The purpose of the summary hearing is to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to prove discrimination as alleged in her Application. The applicant will be required to describe how she intends to prove her case including what witnesses she will question and what they are likely to say. The applicant will need to address how she can link the actions of the respondents to the prohibited grounds cited in her Application.

5If the Tribunal determines that there is no reasonable prospect of success the Application will be dismissed, otherwise, the Application will be referred for a hearing on the merits. It is at the merits hearing that the Tribunal would conduct a hearing in person and would receive oral testimony from the applicant and witnesses for each of the parties.

6The applicant has not raised any specific prejudice that would require the Tribunal to conduct the summary hearing in person rather than by teleconference.

7In addition, the applicant appears to have misinterpreted the role of the Tribunal in seeking a referral to a lawyer in Thunder Bay. The Tribunal is an independent adjudicative body. It is not the role of the Tribunal to assist in the retention of legal counsel. The applicant makes reference in her materials to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and presumably she has been in contact with the Centre with respect to her Application.

8With respect to the adjournment request, the Tribunal’s Practice Directions and case law are clear that adjournments will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments reads in relevant part as follows:

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.

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.

9In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534 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. (…) 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 [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

10The applicant has provided no explanation as to why she is unavailable on February 16, 2012 that could amount to exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

11The adjournment is denied, and the parties must be prepared to participate in the summary hearing on February 16, 2012 in accordance with the CAD of September 15, 2011.

12I am not seized.