HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wallace Lim

Applicant

-and-

Lorraine Siu, Luviminda (Luvi) Pangasanhan and Yuen-Yee Chow

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

Intervenor

INTERIM Decision

Adjudicator: Denyse Diaz

Date: February 17, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 334

Indexed as: Lim v. Siu

appearances

Wallace Lim, Applicant ) Richard Levin, Counsel

Lorraine Siu,, Luvi Pangasanhan )

and Yuen-Yee Chow, Respondents ) Darragh Meagher, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees )

Local 79, Intervenor ) Gail Misra, Counsel

[1] This is an Application alleging discrimination in the context of employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H-19, as amended (the “Code”). A summary hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2012 at 1:30p.m., by teleconference.

[2] On the morning of January 17, 2012 Counsel for the respondents advised the Tribunal that the parties would be seeking an adjournment on consent at the Summary Hearing.

[3] Counsel for the applicant advised that the parties were in the midst of settlement discussions which they believe could bring a timely resolution of the matter before the Tribunal. Therefore, they were seeking a brief adjournment, on consent. He explained that the adjournment request was late because he was retained some time into these proceedings and the timeliness of his client responding due to his health concerns.

4The 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.

5In 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

[6] The parties have all agreed to adjourn this hearing in an attempt to resolve this Application. They all anticipate that the Application should be fully resolved within a few days. The Applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for the late adjournment request, which the Tribunal, in this case, accepts as an exceptional circumstance. With these factors in mind, the Tribunal grants the requested adjournment.

[7] The Applicant is to advise the Tribunal within 30 days of this hearing if the matter has been settled or if parties wish to reschedule the Summary Hearing.

[6] I am not seized of this matter.