Deveaux v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2013 HRTO 1118

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Matthew Deveaux

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Anne Harris

Respondents

Interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: June 25, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1118

Indexed as: Deveaux v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

iNTRODUCTION

1This is an Application under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision addresses the respondents' request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for October 9, 2013, for the reason that the individual respondent has an important personal matter that week and provides directions regarding various outstanding Requests for Order During Proceedings.

BACKGROUND

2The Application was filed with the Tribunal on May 8, 2012. Among other things, the applicant alleges that the individual respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability when he was forced into a secure room to report to probation after he advised that he was claustrophobic.

3A single Response has been filed by both respondents. The respondents deny any breach of the Code. Among other things, the respondents submit that the Application should be dismissed as there is no link between the actions of the respondents and any ground under the Code.

4On March 1, 2013, the Tribunal scheduled a single day of hearing for October 9, 2013.

5On May 13, 2013, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal seeking an adjournment of the hearing date for the reason that the individual respondent has an "important personal matter" taking place the week of the hearing. The respondents state that while outside the Tribunal's timeframe for adjourning, the hearing is still several months away and the applicant will not be prejudiced. Further, the respondents note that the applicant has indicated that he is seeking advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and has suggested that he may want to consolidate this Application with other matters before the Tribunal (although counsel acknowledges that the applicant's intentions in that regard are unclear).

6The applicant has responded to the request indicating that he is opposed.

Adjournment Request

7The Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Request, and Requests for Adjournments states, in part:

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.

8In Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, the Tribunal states at paras. 4 and 5:

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.

9Having regard to the above considerations and the material on file, I am not prepared to adjourn the hearing. The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was issued two and a half months before the Adjournment Request. The respondents have not explained why the personal respondent cannot attend beyond the assertion that she has an important matter nor have the respondents provided an explanation as to the timing of their request. Having regard to the material on file and the applicant's objection, I do not find that the respondents have pointed to any exceptional circumstances that would justify granting an adjournment.

10The Adjournment Request is denied.

Further Directions

11There are several outstanding Requests for Order During Proceedings in this matter: a Request by the applicant to add a party filed March 15, 2013 (which does not appear to have been copied to the person sought to be added); a Request by the applicant to add a party and an order that the respondents provide the contact information for the person sought to be added filed March 15, 2013 (which the respondents do not appear to have responded to); a Request by the respondents to remove the named personal respondent dated March 28, 2013; and a Request by the applicant to add Niagara Regional Police Services filed April 5, 2013.

12Further, in an email dated April 4, 2013 (filed April 5, 2013), it appears that the applicant may not object to the respondents' Request to remove the named personal respondent subject to certain conditions which are identified.

13Prior to considering these Requests the Tribunal directs as follows:

i. By July 2, 2013, the respondents shall file any reply to the applicant's email dated April 4, 2013;

ii. By July 9, 2013, the applicant shall confirm in writing if he is still seeking to add the party identified in the Request dated March 15, 2013, and if he consents or objects to the respondents' Request to remove the named personal respondent;

iii. By July 2, 2013, the applicant shall confirm if he has served the Niagara Regional Police Services with the Request filed April 15, 2013 and a copy of the Application, Response and Reply, and if he has, provide a copy of a Statement of Delivery (Form 23) confirming the same to the Tribunal along with the contact information for this proposed respondent;

iv. Subject to the applicant confirming that he continues to seek to add the party referenced in paragraph ii above, by July 9, 2013, the respondents shall file a response to the Request dated March 15, 2013 requesting an order that the respondents provide the contact information for the person sought to be added