Jones v. Bridal Classics Inc., 2012 HRTO 1186

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Erika Jones

Applicant

-and-

Bridal Classics Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: June 15, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1186 Indexed as: Jones v. Bridal Classics Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Erika Jones, Applicant

Richard Miller, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on March 18, 2011, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy). The Application is scheduled for a hearing in Toronto on June 18 and 19, 2012. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for an adjournment on consent, sent to the Tribunal June 14, 2012.

2The applicant states that a settlement in principle has been reached between the parties, and that they require June 18, 2012, in order to complete the paperwork. The applicant states that if the settlement is not concluded, the parties could appear before the Tribunal on June 19, 2012, to begin the hearing.

3The Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments” reads as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a 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 HRTO typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal.” The HRTO encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard… However, the HRTO discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement.

4If reaching a settlement “in principle” means that the parties have agreed upon the terms of the settlement, then it is difficult to understand why obtaining signatures might take two business days in this age of fax and the internet. The last-minute request appears to imply that the terms are not finalized, and I am reluctant to give up a hearing date when the hearing of this matter will likely consume more than just one day.

5In the circumstances, the request is partially granted. The hearing is adjourned, but only until 1:30 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2012, at which time the parties must be prepared to proceed if the matter is not settled, or a Form 25 filed if a settlement has been reached.