HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gillian Smith
Applicant
-and-
Camis
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Smith v. Camis
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 and sex. The respondent has filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application. This matter is scheduled for hearing in Toronto on September 12, 2012.
2On September 6, 2012 the Tribunal received a request to adjourn the hearing on the basis that the applicant’s doctor is no longer able to testify on September 12, 2012. The applicant has indicated that the respondent consents to the adjournment request.
3The 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.
4In 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.
5As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment, the Tribunal denies the adjournment request. Though the applicant’s doctor is not available to testify, the applicant can be called as a witness on the first day of hearing. It is more than likely that opening statements and the applicant’s evidence may take up the majority of the day. Furthermore, there are a total of four witnesses and it is unlikely that all of their evidence can be concluded in one day and additional hearing dates will be required. In such circumstances the Tribunal finds that it is not appropriate to grant the adjournment request even though it is on consent.
ORDER
6The Tribunal Orders as follows:
a. The adjournment request is denied;
b. Both parties should be prepared to make opening submissions at the hearing; and
c. The applicant should be prepared to give her evidence in-chief and to be cross-examined on the first day of hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 7^th^ day of September, 2012.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair