Altus Lewis v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2013 HRTO 1126

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Altus Lewis

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: June 26, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1126 Indexed as: Lewis v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This Interim Decision addresses what is, in effect, a request from the applicant to adjourn a hearing date scheduled for June 27, 2013.

2The hearing of the applicant’s Application was scheduled to begin on June 24, 2013. At the outset of the hearing on June 24, 2013, the applicant indicated that he was ill and could not proceed. He indicated that he was intending to go to his doctor. The Tribunal subsequently adjourned the hearing and directed the applicant to provide a doctor’s note to the Tribunal by the end of June 25, 2013, that would confirm that the applicant was unable to proceed with his hearing on June 24, 2013, for medical reasons.

3On June 25, 2013, the Tribunal received a “Medical Absentee Certificate” dated June 24, 2013 from the applicant’s doctor, indicating that the applicant would be unable to attend the hearing date scheduled for June 27, 2013. The certificate identifies two medical reasons for why the applicant will be unable to attend. It does not specifically state that the applicant was unable to continue with his hearing on June 24, 2013, for medical reasons.

4This certificate constitutes, in effect, a request to adjourn the hearing scheduled for June 27, 2013. Upon receipt of this certificate, the Tribunal directed the respondent to provide submissions if it wished on the applicant’s request for an adjournment by 1:00 p.m. on June 26, 2013. The respondent has not done so.

DECISION

5The Tribunal’s Confirmation of Hearing Notice states that requests for adjournments will be dealt with according to the Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments. This Practice Direction provides that requests to reschedule must be made within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and that the parties need to confer and provide the Tribunal with alternative dates if a rescheduling is being requested. The Practice Direction also states that The Tribunal discourages requests for adjournments outside this 14-day period noting that later requests for adjournment, particularly ones at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Consequently, the Tribunal will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative. Absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will not grant adjournments, even when all parties consent.

6The applicant’s request for an adjournment is allowed. Illness of a party can be an exceptional circumstance that warrants the granting of an adjournment. While I have some concerns about the medical information provided by the applicant I am not prepared, under the circumstances, to go behind the doctor’s determination that the applicant is unable to appear on June 27, 2013.

7I note that this is the third adjournment request granted to the applicant (first for the original hearing scheduled for April 21-23, 2013, then for June 24, 2013, and now June 27, 2013.

8I did hear submissions from the parties on June 24, 2013, indicating that in their opinion, the hearing may require three or possibly four days and that the counsel for the respondent’s availability is severely limited in the Fall.

9Given the circumstances a three day hearing will be scheduled on dates convenient to the respondent. These dates will be peremptory on the applicant, meaning that no further adjournment requests will be granted.