HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeff Wilson
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General, Valerie Neville, Cathy Hiuser, Bernadette Flis, Linda Dembe, and Murray Quinn
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Indexed as: Wilson v. Ontario (Attorney General)
1In this Application, the applicant has requested an adjournment of the summary hearing scheduled for March 13, 2012. For the reasons given below, the request is denied.
2By Case Assessment Direction dated January 3, 2012, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing on this Application. On January 19, 2012, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Summary Hearing, confirming that the matter has been scheduled to be heard on March 13. The Notice also advised the parties that requests for adjournments would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments.
3On March 6, 2012, the applicant sent email correspondence to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the hearing. He states that he meant to make this request earlier, on February 28, but inadvertently forwarded his request to counsel for the respondents only on that date. Based on the email correspondence, it appears that the respondents do not consent to the adjournment.
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.
6The reason given by the applicant for seeking an adjournment is that he is the process of preparing a motion that he states will “shed light” on the hearing, and which will be filed within three weeks. He states that he is undertaking the work on his own, as he cannot afford counsel.
7I am not convinced that this is an exceptional circumstance that justifies adjournment of the summary hearing. At the hearing, the applicant is not expected to provide any evidence. At the hearing, the applicant may describe the evidence he will rely on to establish his claim of discrimination, including any evidence he believes he will be able to obtain through his motion.
8The adjournment is denied. The summary hearing will proceed as scheduled.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 7th day of March, 2012.
”signed by”______________
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair