Theodore Rosene v. Cementation Canada Inc., 2012 HRTO 55

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Theodore Rosene

Applicant

-and-

Cementation Canada Inc., Diane Hebert and Denis Beaudoin

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: January 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 55

Indexed as: Rosene v. Cementation Canada Inc.

1Theodore Rosene filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. A hearing was scheduled to begin January 17, 2012. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant's request to adjourn.

2The applicant's reason for requesting an adjournment is because his only witness, a medical doctor, lost his wife to cancer in November, and therefore the timing of the hearing poses some difficulties. At a preliminary hearing by way of conference call, counsel for the applicant confirmed that the doctor is a key witness and is now attending the clinic where he works, but only infrequently because of his recent loss, so that she is finding it difficult to contact him to confirm his attendance and prepare him for the hearing. Counsel submits that it is too soon after his wife's death to require the doctor to attend a hearing. Counsel's understanding is that after more time has passed since his wife's death, the doctor will be able to participate in a hearing.

3The respondents do not oppose the request.

4The Tribunal's 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.

5I am satisfied that the evidence of the doctor may be necessary given the respondents' dispute of the applicant's medical condition. I am also satisfied that the circumstances upon which the applicant bases his request are exceptional, and I grant the adjournment. Given that the applicant's counsel was unable to provide dates with respect to the doctor's availability, the Tribunal will re-schedule a hearing. It will be no sooner than April in order to provide the doctor with more time to deal with his personal loss.

6I am not seized.