Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Christine Longtin Applicant
-and-
McArthur Family Medical Centre, Dino Smiljioc, Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus, Y. Charbonneau, Royal Ottawa Hospital, R. Kunjukriskun, Ottawa Police Services Board, Vern White, Omega, Nicholson & Associates Insurance Brokers Limited, Pamela Carrier, 4027698 Canada Inc. - Securite Alain Gauthier, Alain Gautihier, G. Therrien Construction & Renovation, and Raymond Legault Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: February 15, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 327 Indexed as: Longtin v. McArthur Family Medical Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Christine Longtin, Applicant ) Self-represented
INTRODUCTION
1These are Applications under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant seeks an adjournment of the summary hearing scheduled for February 16, 2012. The adjournment request is denied.
BACKGROUND
2On November 23, 2011, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Summary Hearing, in accordance with its Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") dated October 31, 2011. That Notice scheduled the hearing by teleconference for February 16, 2012. It noted, on the first page, that requests for adjournment would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments available on the Tribunal's website.
3The Applicant sent a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFO") on January 25, 2012. In her RFO, she requested an "extension" of the hearing, in light of her request for documentation from certain respondents. She submitted that an "extension" of the summary hearing is required as the documents "may support the Application".
Production Request
4The CAD issued by the Tribunal, directing that a summary hearing take place, listed the issues that the parties should be prepared to address and noted that if any RFOs were filed prior to the summary hearing, the other parties need not respond and any such RFOs would be dealt with at the summary hearing. The CAD also directed the applicant to make her submissions at the summary hearing regarding "why the Application should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success and point to evidence" upon which she seeks to rely to prove discrimination contrary to the Code. It directs that "No evidence or witnesses will be called during the summary hearing".
5The applicant's request for production of documents will be addressed at the summary hearing.
Adjournment Request
6The applicant has requested an "extension" of the summary hearing. The summary hearing in this matter is already set for a full day, and her request may therefore be interpreted as a request for an adjournment.
DECISION
7The 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.
8In 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