Kapoor v. Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 78

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shashi Kapoor

Applicant

• and-

Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario

Jeff Bear

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: January 13, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 78

Indexed as: Kapoor v. Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario

wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shashi Kapoor, Applicant ) on his own behalf

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant seeks an adjournment of the Summary Hearing scheduled for January 17, 2012. The adjournment request is denied.

BACKGROUnd

2On August 11, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) pursuant to Rule 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, directing on its own initiative that a Summary Hearing would be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it would succeed. It directed that the parties deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents or cases they intend to rely upon no later than 14 days prior to the teleconference.

3On November 2, 2011, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. That Notice scheduled the telephone conference call hearing for January 17, 2012 and provided the information the parties would require in order to participate. It noted that requests for adjournment would be dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, which is available on the HRTO’s website. It also noted that the timelines for delivery and filing of any documents or submissions were set out in the CAD of August 11, 2011.

4On January 4, 2012, the applicant wrote an email to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the Summary Hearing date, stating that he received the “Respondents’ position” the previous day and that it consists of “misrepresentations and materials that are not true”. He stated that he wishes to file a response to these in writing and seeks additional time to “place these facts in writing including the documents on which I am going to rely on”. He stated that in order to do this, he would “need a few days at least”.

5I note that from the date of the CAD to today’s date, the applicant has filed no further documents or cases upon which he intends to rely at the Summary Hearing.

DECISION

6The 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.

7In 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.

8In providing its written materials to the applicant on January 3, 2012, the respondent has acted in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions in the CAD to provide any written material upon which it intends to rely no later than 14 days prior to the teleconference. That the applicant does not agree with the respondents’ view of the case or their supporting materials is not an exceptional circumstance.

9There are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment of the Summary Hearing, and the applicant’s request for an adjournment is denied. The hearing will proceed on the date scheduled.