Brad Wilson v. City of Mississauga, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and Rob Perkins, 2013 HRTO 1203

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brad Wilson

Applicant

-and-

City of Mississauga, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and Rob Perkins

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: July 10, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1203

Indexed As Wilson v. Mississauga (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Brad Wilson, Applicant

Self-represented

Corporation of the City of Mississauga and Robert Perkins, Respondents

Erin Kuzz, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 26, 2013.

2On February 11, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties confirming that the hearing of the applicant’s Applications was scheduled for July 26, 2013. The Notice also informed the parties that any requests for an adjournment would l 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.

3On May 11, 2013, the applicant sent correspondence to the respondent requesting an adjournment of the hearing. In a Case Assessment Direction dated May 24, 2013, the Tribunal explained to the applicant that his request for an adjournment had not been made in the appropriate format — it had not been directed to the Tribunal — and indicating to the applicant again that it is only in exceptional circumstances that an adjournment request will be granted when the request is made more than 14 days after the receipt of the Tribunal’s Notice of Confirmation of Hearing.

4The applicant has made a further adjournment request. In a letter to the Tribunal dated July 6, 2013, the applicant requests an adjournment because the parties might engage in discussions prior to the scheduled hearing date in an attempt to resolve the issues in dispute. The respondents oppose the adjournment request.

5The applicant’s adjournment request is denied. I agree with the respondents that the fact that there might be settlement discussions is irrelevant to the obligations of the parties to be prepared to proceed to a hearing and do not constitute extraordinary circumstances.