Millien v. Toronto Police Service, 2012 HRTO 2324

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Felix Millien

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service (43 Division), Toronto Police Services Board, Juneid Patel and Police Chief William Blair

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: December 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2324

Indexed as: Millien v. Toronto Police Service

APPEARANCES

Felix Millien, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Police Service (43 Division) and Toronto Police Services Board, Respondents

David Gourlay, Counsel

Juneid Patel and Police Chief William Blair, Respondents

Lisa Cabel, Counsel

Introduction

1The applicant has requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for December 13 and 14, 2012. For the reasons below, the request is granted.

2By Interim Decision dated November 28, 2012, the Tribunal denied the individual respondents’ request to remove Police Constable Juneid Patel as a personal respondent to the Application. The Interim Decision directed the applicant to file the documents he intended to rely upon at the hearing and his witness statements within seven days of the date of the Interim Decision (December 5, 2012).

3On December 6, 2012, counsel for the individual respondents requested the Tribunal dismiss the Application as abandoned because the applicant had failed to file the required documents by December 5, 2012.

4On December 8, 2012 (received by the Tribunal on December 10, 2012), the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because he is currently in Trinidad and Tobago due to the ill health of his father who experienced a massive heart attack in July 2012. The applicant advised the Tribunal that he has been in Trinidad and Tobago since July 2012, except for a brief return to Toronto from October 15-21, 2012. The applicant further advised the Tribunal that he is returning to Toronto sometime between December 8 and 15, 2012. Finally the applicant advised that he has not received any documents from the respondents, presumably because of his absence.

5The respondents do not oppose the adjournment request. Counsel for the personal respondents advised the Tribunal that her office had received an e-mail message from the applicant on November 18, 2012, which stated that he was out of the country because his father had suffered a massive coronary and the prognosis was not promising. The applicant advised in his communication that he expected to return to Toronto within the next three weeks or thereabouts. The applicant did not copy the Tribunal on the correspondence and it was not forwarded to the Tribunal by counsel for the personal respondents.

6The Tribunal’s practice is to grant adjournments only in exceptional circumstances. In 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.

DECISION

7From the information provided, it appears that as early as November 18, 2012, the applicant may have been aware that he required an adjournment of the hearing. In the applicant’s communication on that date, he indicated that he expected to be home within three weeks which would have been three days before the commencement of the hearing. Had the applicant requested an adjournment at that time, the respondents would have avoided unnecessary hearing preparation time.

8Although the adjournment request should have been made earlier, the reason for the request constitutes the exceptional circumstances required to grant it. For this reason, the adjournment request is granted and the hearing will be rescheduled.

9The applicant has advised that he will be returning to Toronto by December 15, 2012. The applicant is directed to do the following by January 15, 2013:

a. The applicant must file the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing on every party and the Tribunal. If the applicant does not have any documents, he must advise the parties and the Tribunal.

b. The applicant must file witness statements for the witnesses he intends to call at the hearing. If the applicant intends to call only himself as a witness, he must confirm with the parties and the Tribunal whether he is prepared to confine his evidence to the issues and allegations made in the Application, in which case the Application may serve as his will-say statement.

10The applicant is directed to comply with these filing requirements by January 15, 2013. If he fails to do so, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.