HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Qin Chen
Applicant
-and-
Midland Food Products Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Chen v. Midland Food Products Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Qin Chen, Applicant
Richard Miller, Counsel
Midland Food Products Inc., Respondent
Newton Wong, Counsel
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 employment because of disability. The respondent has filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application.
2This matter is scheduled for hearing in Toronto on July 31, 2012.
3On June 29, 2012, the respondent wrote an email to the Tribunal requesting an extension of time to file its materials pursuant to Rules 16.2, 16.3 and 17 (the “hearing materials”) for a period of seven weeks to August 29, 2012 and requesting an adjournment of the hearing until October 2012. This is based on the fact that the Tribunal in Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1265, ordered the applicant to disclose additional documents and the respondent wishes additional time to review these documents.
4On June 29, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal consenting to an extension of time for the filing of the hearing materials to July 17, 2012. However, the applicant opposed the request for an adjournment on the basis that there exists no exceptional circumstances, further the hearing will be more than one day and the applicant will be able to commence his testimony on the first day.
DECISION
5The Practice Direction on requests to adjourn or reschedule 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 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.
6In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, 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. 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.
7The respondent has not demonstrated any exceptional reasons for the requested adjournment. This hearing has already been rescheduled and the July 31, 2012 hearing date was scheduled on the consent of the parties. The Tribunal finds that the hearing should and can commence on July 31, 2012. If there is any prejudice to the respondent given the nature of the documents that it will receive from the applicant, these issues can be canvassed at the hearing.
8Therefore, the request for adjournment is denied. However, I find that it is appropriate to grant an extension of time for the respondent to file its hearing materials to July 19, 2012.
ORDER
9The Tribunal Orders the following:
a. The respondent’s request for an adjournment is denied;
b. The respondent is directed to file its hearing materials by July 19, 2012; and
c. The parties should be prepared to proceed on the merits on July 31, 2012 and to make detailed oral submissions about their relative positions with respect to this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of July, 2012.
”signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair```