Joachim Kapalanga v. Credit Valley Hospital, 2012 HRTO 1650

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joachim Kapalanga

Applicant

-and-

Credit Valley Hospital

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: August 30, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1650

Indexed As: Kapalanga v. Credit Valley Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joachim Kapalanga, Applicant

Ron Franklin, Counsel

Credit Valley Hospital, Respondent

Kathryn Bird, Counsel

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 race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, ancestry, age and sex.

2This interim decision addresses a request by the applicant made on August 27, 2012 to adjourn the hearing scheduled for September 4, 5 and 6, 2012. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Franklin, explained that he is the only lawyer working at his firm and the applicant’s sole representative in this proceeding. Mr. Franklin explained that he planned to complete his preparation for a continuation date in another proceeding scheduled on August 30, 2012 early in the week of August 20, 2012. He then planned to turn his attention to preparing for this matter, which included meeting with the applicant and preparing two Requests for Orders During a Proceeding, one of which he states relate to the respondent’s expert witness.

3Mr. Franklin explained that his plans were disrupted when his wife, who was pregnant, experienced pregnancy-related complications on August 21, 2012 and had to be hospitalized. Her condition stabilized, but she had to remain in the hospital until she gave birth. The baby was originally due on October 19, 2012, but Mr. Franklin and his wife now expected the baby in about four weeks. Mr. Franklin spent most of his time at the hospital and was unable to prepare for his other hearing or for the hearing of this matter between August 21 and August 25, 2012. On August 25, 2012, Mr. Franklin’s wife went into labour and delivered their baby daughter. The baby was significantly premature and remains in an intensive care unit at the hospital. Since her birth, Mr. Franklin has devoted most of his time to supporting his wife and daughter and preparing for their daughter’s homecoming. Consequently, Mr. Franklin has not been able to meet with the applicant to prepare for the hearing or prepare Requests for Orders During Proceedings, which he considers important to the applicant’s case. In the circumstances, the applicant seeks rescheduling of the hearing, as proceeding as scheduled will prejudice the applicant’s ability to present his case. The respondent consents to the request, but requests that the hearing be rescheduled as soon as possible.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that outside that time adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants adjournment sparingly and the consent of the other party is no guarantee that a request for an adjournment will be successful.

5In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the request for a brief adjournment is justified. The complications Mr. Franklin’s wife suffered and the premature birth of their child threw Mr. Franklin’s plans to prepare for the hearing of this matter into disarray and there is no one at his firm that could assume carriage of the file. Requiring the applicant to proceed in these circumstances would be unfair in my view. The hearing scheduled for September 4, 5, and 6 is adjourned. The parties are directed to provide their available dates for a hearing that are within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled hearing dates to the Registrar within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The Tribunal shall thereafter send the parties a notice confirming the re-scheduled dates.

6The applicant is directed to file the Requests for Order During Proceedings described in the adjournment request by October 1, 2012.