Evangeline Vihos v. Hudson Bay Company, 2012 HRTO 43

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Evangeline Vihos

Applicant

-and-

Hudson Bay Company

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie

Date: January 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 43

Indexed as: Vihos v. Hudson Bay Company

wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Evangeline Vihos, Applicant ) Self-represented

Hudson Bay Company, Respondent ) Meghan E. Ferguson, Counsel

1This Application is scheduled for a hearing on January 11, 2012. This Interim Decision addresses an adjournment request submitted by the applicant on January 9, 2012.

2A Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was issued on June 20, 2011. The deadline for the exchange of documents and witness statements was November 28, 2011. The respondent complied with the deadline. The applicant did not. I issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) on December 21, 2011, requiring the applicant to comply with the disclosure requirements by January 4, 2012, or the Application might be dismissed as abandoned.

3The applicant did not follow the direction in the CAD. However, she did contact the Tribunal registry office and made enquiries about the hearing process. I issued a CAD on January 6, 2012, that stated that the narrative in the Application would be considered to be the applicant’s witness statement and that she would require the permission of the adjudicator at the hearing to introduce evidence other than what was set out in her Application and would require permission to have anyone other than herself testify.

4On January 9, 2012, the applicant asked for an adjournment of the hearing because of “personal dilemmas”. The applicant was advised by the Tribunal that at this late stage, an adjournment would only be granted under exceptional circumstances. She was given an opportunity to provide more detailed reasons for her request by 5:00 p.m., January 9, 2012. She was also advised that if a response was not received by that time, the Tribunal would decide on the request on the basis of the submissions already filed.

5The respondent stated that it would not oppose a reasonable request for a postponement. However, it noted that there were no reasons provided. The respondent also noted the inconvenience to its counsel and witnesses, who had made arrangements to attend the hearing.

Decision

6The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests and Requests for Adjournments (the “Practice Direction”) provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and that outside that time adjournments will be granted only in extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. The example of an exceptional circumstance given in the Practice Direction is illness (of a party, witness or representative). Absent exceptional circumstances, the HRTO will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

7The applicant has not provided a reason for her request, other than “personal dilemmas”. The applicant failed to provide more detailed reasons for her adjournment request despite being given an opportunity to do so. The applicant has not provided the Tribunal with information that would constitute an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance.

8The request for an adjournment is denied.