HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Peggy Harrypersad
Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board
Respondent
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1628
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 20, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2378 Indexed as: Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Peggy Harrypersad, Applicant Self-represented
Peel District School Board, Respondent Roy Filion, Counsel
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 ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin and race. This Interim Decision deals with an adjournment request filed by the applicant on December 18, 2012.
2The hearing is scheduled to take place on February 12 and 13, 2013. The parties were advised of these dates on June 15, 2012. The basis for the request is the applicant’s decision to seek legal representation and implicitly her view that she will need more time to do so than is available between now and the scheduled hearing dates. The respondents took no position on the request, only advising which of the proposed dates were acceptable. The intervenor took no position.
3The request is denied.
4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction now provides that requests to reschedule must be made within ten days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that thereafter, adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The Practice Direction states the following regarding requests for adjournments:
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the ten-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, copied to the other parties.
The HRTO typically will not adjourn a hearing date because the parties wish to “engage in settlement discussions” or are “close to a deal.” The HRTO encourages mediation and settlements, and will assist the parties in this regard. Where parties believe they may be able to resolve a matter shortly before the scheduled hearing, they should advise the Registrar and the HRTO may make a mediator and mediation room available. The parties may also request mediation/adjudication in accordance with Rule 15.2.1 (and Rule 8.5 for s. 53(3) and 53(5) applications). However, the HRTO discourages the cancellation or adjournment of hearing dates so that the parties can explore settlement
5The decision of a party to retain counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute an exceptional circumstance that would justify an adjournment. See Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 534. A party seeking representation after a hearing has been scheduled is responsible to ensure that their representative is available on the dates scheduled. I note that the hearing date was set in this case in June 2012. The applicant has had many months to retain representation and there are still weeks before the hearing in which she can do so. Accordingly the adjournment request is denied
6I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of December, 2012.
“Signed by”
David Muir Vice-chair

