Muriel Ellis v. City of Kawartha Lakes and John Hagarty, 2012 HRTO 1079

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Muriel Ellis

Applicant

-and-

City of Kawartha Lakes and John Hagarty

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: May 30, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1079

Indexed as: Ellis v.City of Kawartha Lakes

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Muriel Ellis, Applicant

Self-represented

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”)..

2A summary hearing in this matter is scheduled for June 5, 2012. On May 29, 2012 the applicant requested that it be adjourned. The reason given for the request is that the respondents “have not forwarded to me the documents I have been requesting on various occasions”.

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 March 20, 2012. The request for an adjournment is made well beyond the five days after the notice of the hearing. The only reason advanced by the applicant for an adjournment is that she requires various documents from the respondents. However, the applicant is not required to call any evidence at a summary hearing. She is merely to indicate what evidence she will rely upon in order to establish her claim of discrimination.

6As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment, it is denied. The summary hearing will proceed on the date and at the time scheduled.

7I am not seized.