Jesudason v. KCLC Properties, ULC o/a The Kingbridge Centre, 2013 HRTO 1047

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ranjith Jesudason

Applicant

-and-

KCLC Properties, ULC o/a The Kingbridge Centre

and Antonio Depaolis

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ruth Carey

Date: June 12, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1047

Indexed as: Jesudason v. KCLC Properties, ULC o/a The Kingbridge Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ranjith Jesudason, Applicant

Colin Brown, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin, disability, sex and reprisal.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) dated June 10, 2013 requesting an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for June 26, 2013 and an extension of time to amend the Application.

3The applicant states that he was determined to be permanently disabled in April 2013. Had he remained employed by the respondent at that time, he would have been eligible for short and long-term disability under the respondent’s insurance plan. He wishes to amend the Application to include a claim for that loss of benefits. He wants to call additional medical witnesses to support this claim and needs time to arrange for their attendance and deliver their witness statements.

4Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was mailed to the parties on December 13, 2012. The Notice of Confirmation of the Hearing specifically states that requests for rescheduling are to be made within fourteen days of issuance of the Notice. Requests for adjournment after the fourteen day time limit are dealt with in accordance with the Tribunal’s “Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments” available on the Tribunal’s web site. It says in part:

The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or 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.

5The purpose of the Tribunal’s practice with respect to adjournments was explained in Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660 at para. 4 as follows:

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.

6The RFOP does not cite any exceptional circumstances for adjourning the hearing. I would also observe that the applicant has known of his change of status since April 2013 but failed to seek an adjournment at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, the request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for June 26, 2013 is denied.

7The request to amend the Application will be addressed at the beginning of the hearing.

8If the applicant wishes to call additional witnesses, he shall prepare witness statements of their proposed evidence and deliver them to the respondents and the Tribunal no later than June 20, 2013. Whether they should be permitted to testify may be addressed at the hearing.

ORDER

9The Tribunal orders the following:

a. The request to adjourn is denied. The hearing will proceed as scheduled on June 26, 2013;

b. The requests to amend the Application and to call additional witnesses may be addressed at the hearing; and

c. The applicant will prepare witness statements for any additional witnesses and deliver them to the respondents and the Tribunal no later than June 20, 2013.