German McKenzie v. Ana Isla, 2012 HRTO 1640

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

German McKenzie

Applicant

-and-

Ana Isla

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: August 28, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1640

Indexed as: McKenzie v. Isla

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

German McKenzie, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is (1) to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn and reschedule the summary hearing, and (2) to direct the respondent to provide contact information for the person to whom documents should be delivered.

2On April 4, 2012, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent harassed and discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his creed. Specifically, the applicant, who was a volunteer for the Roman Catholic Chaplaincy at Brock University, alleged that the respondent, who is a professor at the University, proposed motions, which made unfounded charges against him related to his Catholic pro-life and anti-abortion beliefs, in various departments of the University. He stated that he filed a harassment and discrimination complaint with the University’s Office of Human Rights and Equity Services, but it was dismissed.

3On May 14, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), which directed that a summary hearing be held by teleconference to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it has no reasonable prospect of success. The CAD also directed the respondent to write to the Tribunal, with a copy to the applicant, within 14 days of the date of the CAD, providing contact information for the person to whom documents should be delivered.

4On June 7, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Summary Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for September 17, 2012. The Notice also informed the parties 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 July 26, 2012, the applicant sent the Tribunal an e-mail which requested that the summary hearing be adjourned and rescheduled on the basis that the University’s Office of Human Rights and Equity Services opened an investigation into his complaint on April 27, 2012, which is ongoing. He stated that the results of the investigation may have an impact on his Application before the Tribunal. In the applicant’s view, this constitutes an exceptional circumstance, which justifies adjourning and rescheduling the summary hearing. The respondent did not respond to the applicant’s adjournment request.

6The 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.

7In the case at hand, the applicant waited more than 14 days after receiving the Notice of Summary Hearing to make his adjournment request, even though he appears to have known of the reason for his request (the University’s Office of Human Rights and Equity Services had opened an investigation into his complaint) when he received the Notice. Furthermore, beyond making vague statements about the impact that the results of the investigation may have on his Application, he has not explained how this constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that justifies adjourning the summary hearing.

8Accordingly, the applicant’s request to adjourn and reschedule the summary hearing is dismissed.

9To date, the respondent has not complied with the Tribunal’s direction to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant the contact information for the person to whom documents should be delivered. Accordingly, the Tribunal reminds the respondent to comply with this direction immediately.