Audrey Frost v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino, 2012 HRTO 210

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Audrey Frost Applicant

-and-

Great Blue Heron Charity Casino Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Audrey Frost Applicant

-and-

Great Blue Heron Charity Casino Respondent

Interim decisION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: January 27, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 210 Indexed as: Frost v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino

1These are two Applications filed pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with two Requests filed by the Applicant. The first, a Request for Order During Proceeding, seeks the consolidation of these two Applications. The second is a Request to adjourn the hearing scheduled on March 1, 2012 in File 2009-04200-I (the "2009 Application").

Consolidation

2The applicant seeks the consolidation of these two Applications because 2011-09541-I (the "2011 Application") "is part of this ongoing case".

3The respondent opposes the Request on the basis that the two matters are not closely related; the witnesses it will be calling in response to the allegations in the two cases will be different; and that the 2009 Application is set for hearing on March 1, 2012, and the other case is at an early stage.

4The Request to consolidate these two Applications is denied. The 2009 Application was filed in November 2009 and relates to a number of incidents of alleged failures on the part of the respondent to accommodate the applicant appropriately in August 2008 and again in the Fall of 2009. There are also a number of allegations under the rubric of harassment primarily in July and August 2009. These allegations, which largely involve alleged violations of the collective agreement and which are not clearly related to any Code issue, are the subject of a Request that has not yet been dealt with. Although this is not entirely clear, the allegations appear to relate primarily to events in August 2008 and between September and November 2009. The 2011 Application was filed in August 2011 and consists of an allegation that the applicant was told that her invitation to an employee recognition dinner on May 30, 2011 was withdrawn due "to a legal action" with the respondent.

5I agree with the respondent that it would not be fair, just or expeditious to consolidate these two Applications. I am particularly concerned that the 2011 Application is at an early stage and the other matter is scheduled to begin in a few weeks. The parties have made disclosure to each other and although there remain some outstanding issues, the case can at least begin to be heard on March 1, 2012, as scheduled. To consolidate these cases at this late stage would very likely require the adjournment of the March 1, 2012 hearing date, leaving a dispute unresolved since November 2009 to linger for several more months.

6I am also not persuaded that the two Applications are sufficiently linked that issues of the prudent utilization of the parties' and the Tribunal's resources are really engaged if the cases proceed separately. Although the subject matter of the two Applications is not entirely unrelated in the sense that the alleged reprisal in the 2011 Application is presumably alleged to be in respect of the 2009 Application, nonetheless the reprisal issue is not necessarily dependent on any conclusions reached as a result of the hearing of the 2009 Application.

7For all of these reasons I find that it would not be fair, just or expeditious to consolidate these two Applications.

The Adjournment Request

8The applicant has requested the adjournment of the hearing in the 2009 Application because her only witness, Dr. Mcleod, is unable to attend on that date. There is no reason given for this potential witness' unavailability on that date.

9The respondent opposes the Request.

10The adjournment request is denied. The hearing date was set and the parties advised by Notice of Confirmation of Hearing ("Notice") dated October 21, 2011. The Notice advised the parties as follows:

If you are unavailable for some or all the hearing dates scheduled, you must write the HRTO Registrar, copied to the other parties, within 10 days of the date of the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and provide 5 alternative dates on which you are available within 12 weeks of the originally scheduled hearing date(s).

11The Notice also referred the parties to the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments which provides in part as follows:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or 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.

12The hearing is scheduled to take place on March 1, 2012. At this stage it is not clear that it will necessarily be completed in the one day scheduled. Most importantly the applicant has not explained why the witness is not available on March 1, 2012 or explained what steps she has taken to ensure his or her availability that day. The applicant has known of this date since October 21, 2011, and was given a period of time in which to contact the Tribunal if the date was not acceptable. One of the reasons parties are given this time to re-schedule is to afford them an opportunity to confirm the availability of their potential witnesses. I am also concerned that the summary of Dr. Mcleod's expected evidence is inadequate. Given all of these facts I am unable to conclude that there are extraordinary circumstances present which would justify the adjournment of the March 1, 2012 date.

13The adjournment request is denied and the hearing will begin on March 1, 2012. The applicant may renew her request at the appropriate time.

14I am not seized of this case.