Dana Silk v. Ian Matthews, 2012 HRTO 37

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dana Silk

Applicant

-and-

Ian Matthews

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: January 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 37

Index as: Silk v. Matthews

Reasons for Decision

1This matter is scheduled for a one-day hearing in Ottawa on February 10, 2012.

2On January 3, 2012, the respondent wrote to the applicant and the Tribunal and requested that the hearing be rescheduled. He stated that three of his proposed witnesses will be absent from Ottawa on February 10th because of work-related obligations. He asked that the hearing be rescheduled to a date that permits their attendance.

3The Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) was sent to the parties on July 19, 2011, scheduling a one-day hearing for February 10, 2012. The Notice of Hearing clearly states that parties must act quickly if they are unavailable on that date and that they must advise the Tribunal of their unavailability within 14 days of receiving the Notice.

4Further, the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments provides:

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.

5The respondent’s request for an adjournment is denied. The Tribunal will not reschedule the hearing. I am not satisfied that the witnesses’ unavailability due work-related obligations is an extraordinary circumstance that warrants an adjournment or rescheduling of the hearing at this late stage. The Tribunal has held that the unavailability of witnesses who will be out of town on the date of the hearing is not an extraordinary circumstance that warrants an adjournment of a hearing (see for example, Iqbal v. Inscape Corporation, 2009 HRTO 934, Shannon v. Renfrew (County), 2011 HRTO 171; Pfeiffer v. Margaret Laurence Housing Co-operative, 2011 HRTO 2207).

6The parties should arrive at the hearing prepared to proceed with the entirety of their case. If the respondent’s proposed witnesses are not present on February 10, 2012, the respondent must be prepared to make oral submissions regarding why the evidence of those witnesses is necessary and whether it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to hold an additional day of hearing. The applicant will also have an opportunity to make oral submissions on these issues.