Susan Bartenstein v. Ontario Disability Support Program, 2012 HRTO 498

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan Bartenstein

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Community and Social Services

Respondent

INTERIM Decision

Adjudicator: Denyse Diaz

Date: March 8, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 498

Indexed as: Bartenstein v. Ontario Disability Support Program ________________________________________________________________

1This is an Application alleging discrimination in the delivery of services due to disability, creed and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant self-identifies as an Orthodox Jewish woman who receives benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program.

2The Tribunal, in a Case Assessment Direction, dated December 14, 2010, the Tribunal directed the scheduling of a half-day summary hearing to determine whether the applicant’s allegations in respect of the respondent have a reasonable prospect of success and could reasonably lead to a finding of a violation of the Code.

3The hearing was originally scheduled for March 29, 2011. On March 20, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the hearing due to health issues. The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on March 31, 2011, advising that she would probably have surgery on her left hip in October 2011 and proposed that the hearing be rescheduled to either July 2011 or August 2011. The parties were notified by Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, dated May 16, 2011, that the Tribunal had rescheduled the hearing to August 11, 2011.

4On July 18, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting an indefinite adjournment of the summary hearing. This adjournment was granted in Bartenstein v. Ontario Disability Support Program, 2011 HRTO 1484. The parties were directed to provide to the Tribunal available dates in March 2012. In the event that any party failed to do so by January 31, 2012, the Tribunal would assign a date for a March hearing. The date was peremptory on the applicant.

5The Tribunal scheduled the Summary Hearing for March 23, 2012. On February 14, 2012, counsel for the Respondent forwarded a copy of correspondence he received from the Applicant, dated February 8, 2012. In her correspondence she indicated that she did not know when she would be available for a hearing. Counsel for the Respondent in his correspondence stated that the Applicant is seeking an adjournment and that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by a further delay of the proceedings. The adjournment request is denied.

6Adjournment requests are not granted automatically and will only be allowed in extraordinary circumstances. In 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.

7The summary hearing scheduled for March 23, 2012, was peremptory on the applicant. The Applicant’s correspondence fails to disclose any reason why she would be unavailable to attend at the hearing on March 23, 2012. She states that she was discharged from hospital on January 20, 2012, and is “planning to undergo surg. on my rt. arm & shoulder in the very near future”. The Tribunal finds that this does not disclose any exceptional circumstances to grant an adjournment.

8The Tribunal must also consider if there is a Code-related reason which would justify a further adjournment. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not provided a specific disability related reason to justify the adjournment. The adjournment request is denied.

9The summary hearing will proceed as scheduled on March 23, 2012.