Kosovic v. Niagara Caregivers and Personnel Ltd., 2012 HRTO 2096

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Zoran Kosovic Applicant

-and-

Niagara Caregivers and Personnel Ltd. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: November 5, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2096

Indexed as: Kosovic v. Niagara Caregivers and Personnel Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Zoran Kosovic, Applicant Self-represented

Niagara Caregivers and Personnel Ltd., Respondent Kim Richards, Representative

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 age.

2In his Application, the applicant alleges that the job application form he completed at the respondent company included a question regarding his date of birth and his health. He has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP), seeking his "Job Application Form".

3The respondent has replied to his RFOP, indicating that it has not retained his job application form.

4Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states the requirement for disclosure of documentation. The respondent is ordered to confirm forthwith that all arguably relevant documentation has been provided to the applicant, and in the above-noted circumstances, arguably relevant documents include any blank job application forms which reflect the job application forms as they existed in June, 2010. If it has not delivered such documentation to the applicant, it is ordered to do so immediately.

REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT

5On October 29, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal, requesting an adjournment of the November 8, 2012 hearing date scheduled in this matter, as he wants to obtain a document from his doctor, who is away from the office until after the hearing date. He advises that the document he wants to obtain is for use as evidence at the hearing.

6The Tribunal directed the respondent to make any submissions it wished to make regarding the applicant's request for an adjournment by November 1, 2012. The respondent has made no submissions and the time for doing so has now passed.

7The Tribunal sent a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties on April 3, 2012. In that notice, it stated that requests for adjournment will be dealt with in accordance with the HRTO's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournment, as found on the Tribunal's website.

8The 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.

9In 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.

10In this case, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a reason that would justify granting an adjournment. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing provided dates by which the parties were to have disclosed documentation. The applicant has not indicated any earlier attempt to obtain the documentation he says he now seeks from his doctor, nor has he provided any explanation for why he did not attempt to obtain the documentation earlier.

11As there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant adjournment of this hearing, the applicant's request to adjourn the scheduled hearing day is denied. The hearing will proceed on the date scheduled.

12I am not seized.