HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sinem Ketenci
Applicant
-and-
Yeates School of Graduate Studies at Ryerson University
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Indexed as: Ketenci v. Yeates School of Graduate Studies at Ryerson University
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
Sinem Ketenci, Applicant ) On her own behalf
Yeates School of Graduate Studies )
at Ryerson University, Respondent ) Jodi Martin, Counsel
Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Cathy Pike, Counsel
Lawyers for Animal Welfare ) Camilla Labchuck, Representative
1A summary hearing is scheduled in this matter for March 19, 2011. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request that the hearing be adjourned. It also provides further direction to the parties and proposed intervenors regarding the hearing of this matter.
2For the reasons that follow, the request for an adjournment is denied.
OVERVIEW
3In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated November 8, 2011, the Tribunal directed that this matter proceed by way of a summary hearing. The Tribunal wrote:
In this case, the issue will be whether, assuming the allegations to be true, the applicant’s allegations may reasonably be considered to amount to a Code violation. In particular, the parties shall be prepared to address whether the Application raises the ground of creed and whether assuming the ground of creed is engaged, there is a reasonable prospect the applicant can establish discrimination.
4On March 8, 2012, Lawyers for Animal Welfare (“LAW”) and the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) filed Requests to Intervene (“Requests”). Neither of the proposed intervenors wish to take a position on the facts of Application.
5LAW seeks to make submissions regarding the issue of whether or not ethical veganism is a creed within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”).
6The Commission does not wish to make submissions on the substantive issues raised in the Application; its Request to Intervene is simply in regards to the order in which the issues identified in the CAD are addressed by the Tribunal. The Commission submits that it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to:
a. At the summary hearing, first determine whether, assuming the ground of creed is engaged, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success; and
b. If necessary, the Tribunal could determine at a later date whether ethical veganism is a creed within the meaning of the Code.
7The respondent has filed submissions indicating that it agrees with the Commission’s proposal. The respondent states that, if the Tribunal decides to proceed in this manner, it wishes to reserve the right to respond to the Requests once the Tribunal has determined the first issue (see paragraph 6a).
8The applicant has provided submissions in response to the Requests. She states that she disagrees with the Commission’s proposal and asks that the hearing be adjourned pending completion of the Commission’s updated policy on creed.
9Counsel for the Commission has written to the Tribunal, copied to the parties and the other proposed intervenor. She states that the Commission’s policy will not be completed imminently. Further, the Commission does not take the position that the hearing should be adjourned pending the completion of its policy.
DECISION
10The 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.
11The applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied. I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment of the summary hearing in this case. In particular, I am not satisfied that the fact that the Commission is reviewing its policy on creed, without more, is a basis to adjourn the Tribunal’s consideration of the Application.
12At the outset of the summary hearing, the Tribunal will hear submissions from the parties and the proposed intervenors concerning the order in which the issues will be addressed. Although I find that it is appropriate to hear from the proposed intervenors regarding the order of the issues, at this stage, I make no further determination regarding the Requests to intervene. If necessary, the Tribunal may provide further direction at or following the summary hearing.
13I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of March, 2012
”signed by”__________________
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair