Maze v. Genco Distribution of Canada Inc., 2012 HRTO 1095

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ralph Maze Applicant

-and-

Genco Distribution of Canada Inc. and Lisa Hyndman Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: May 31, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1095 Indexed as: Maze v. Genco Distribution of Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ralph Maze, Applicant Deborah Corcoran, Counsel

Genco Distribution of Canada Inc. and Lisa Hyndman, Respondents Ruben Goulart, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on December 24, 2010, the respondents filed a Response on March 17, 2011, and the applicant filed a Reply on April 26, 2011.

3On September 12, 2011, the parties attended a mediation at the Tribunal, which did not result in a settlement of the case.

4On December 5, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for June 7 and 8, 2012. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

5On May 18, 2012, the applicant’s newly retained legal counsel filed a letter with the Tribunal, which requested that the hearing be adjourned so that she could review the file and prepare for the hearing. On May 22, 2012, the respondents’ counsel filed a letter, which consented to the applicant’s adjournment request.

6The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after the Hearing Notice was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4:

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 [now 14 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 those 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.

7The Tribunal has generally held that a party’s failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants the adjournment of the hearing, including when counsel is unavailable or unprepared to proceed on the scheduled date. See, for example, Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1663; Davie v. PMA Brethour Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1198; Wilson v. York (Regional Municipality), 2009 HRTO 2020; Schenk v. OSAD, 2010 HRTO 446; and Vallentyne, supra.

8In the case at hand, the applicant failed to retain legal counsel in a timely manner. I see no reason to deviate from the Tribunal’s standard approach. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.