Deborah Smith v. The Rover’s Rest and Bruce Dorman, 2012 HRTO 669

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deborah Smith

Applicant

-and-

The Rover’s Rest and Bruce Dorman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 30, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 669

Indexed as: Smith v. The Rover’s Rest

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing.

2On January 11, 2012, the Tribunal’s Registrar sent an e-mail to the parties, which offered them hearing days between April 16-20 or May 7-11, 2012 for a rescheduled two-day hearing. The Registrar directed the parties to confirm their availability by no later than January 20, 2012.

3The respondents confirmed that they were available in May 2012. The applicant did not contact the Registrar to confirm her availability.

4On January 27, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Rescheduled Hearing to the parties, which informed them that the hearing was scheduled for May 10 and 11, 2012. The Notice also informed them that requests for adjournments will be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Request for Adjournments. The Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule a hearing must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice, and requests for adjournments thereafter will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, such as the illness of a party, witness, or representative.

5On the same day, the applicant informed a Tribunal staff person by telephone that she was seeking legal counsel. On February 21, 2012, the applicant’s proposed legal counsel e-mailed the Tribunal and requested that the hearing be adjourned to later in May because she was not available on the scheduled hearing dates. The respondents did not respond to the adjournment request.

6The applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing was made more than 14 days after Hearing Notice was issued to the parties. The Tribunal’s approach to late adjournment requests was set out in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4:

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 [now 14 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 those broader interests by requiring that a party advise within five days [now 14 days] that they are unavailable, and providing that requests for adjournment will not otherwise be granted, absent exceptional circumstances.

7The Tribunal has generally held that a party’s failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance that warrants the adjournment of the hearing, including when counsel is unavailable or unprepared to proceed on the scheduled date. See, for example, Pazhaidam v. North York General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 1663, Davie v. PMA Brethour Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1198, Wilson v. York (Regional Municipality), 2009 HRTO 2020, Schenk v. OSAD, 2010 HRTO 446, and Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660.

8I see no reason to deviate from the Tribunal’s standard approach. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing is denied.